On 5/1/2012 4:00 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote: > Hi Eric, > Am 01.05.2012 16:30, schrieb Eric Covener: >> Even 2.0 seems to just generate libmod_foo.exp then pass the generated >> file to the linker, but I wouldn't go out of your way removing them >> from 2.0 and 2.2 if they aren't bothering anyone. > hmmm, so you say axe from 2.4.x/HEAD but keep ìn 2.2.x and 2.0.x?? Why keep > non-used/non-functional files? > Not that the files do bother me in any way, and I dont care about - but now > since we found > they are obsolete why not clean them up?
Because that would be another diff that the reviewer needs to substantiate. Maintenance branches should only have necessary, not cosmetic maintenance. This is why it is evil to do major whitespace corrections on those branches, it just muddies the picture for the rest of us.
