On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 06:26:57AM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 04:05:40PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019, Jose E. Marchesi wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:22:46AM +0200, Jose E. Marchesi wrote: > > > > > > --- a/configure > > > > > > +++ b/configure > > > > Yeah by mistake I used a Debian patched autoconf 2.96. Will regenerate > > > > using vanilla autoconf for subsequent versions of the patch. > > > > > > It's nice that this is identified and hopefully resolved, but > > > since nobody mentioned it I'll just point out that > > > it's preferable to *not at all* include generated files like > > > configure in patches. See > > > <https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches>. > > > > "Do not include generated files as part of the patch, just mention them > > in the ChangeLog (e.g., "* configure: Regenerate.")." > > > > That's not common practice nowadays I think? > > I don't know about that. But, if that's a valid observation > then I'd say people just tend to generally drift to the path of > least resistance for the immediate task at hand. It's rarely an > indication of *good* practice by itself, but perhaps that it's > time to bring it up.
(The changelog should just say "Regenerate.", I'm refering only to posting the actual diff to the configure script). > > It's also not good advice > > for people who might get it wrong. > > You mean the autoconf version, I guess. For people who get the regeneration wrong in any way. Wrong version of autoxxxx is frequent, sure. > That's about the only > value of including generated files; for newcomers that miss > using matched versions. Including bulk in patches can also > cause grief by messages being lost when they exceed the > size-limit. Again, I only meant the configuration scripts. (What autogenerated files are much bigger than their source files, btw? As diffs even?) > > Also, the patches on the mailing > > list should preferably be exactly what is committed. For sanity. > > IMHO sanity for gcc-patches is maximum review-value and > readability for others, avoiding redundancy. I'd just think > sending generated files for review is as redundant now as it was > when that advice was added. For many things you are right afaics. But I see people getting autoxxxx wrong often. > Though, if you as a frequent reviewer believe that the valued > majority of reviewers and readers thinks differently, I suggest > taking steps to update the advice. Either way, keep the advice > up-to-date, for sanity. :-) Segher
