On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 08:49:46AM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Diego Biurrun wrote: > >On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:28:25PM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote: > >>On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Luca Barbato wrote: > >>>Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:51:23PM +0200, Hendrik Leppkes wrote: > >>>>>On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Luca Barbato wrote: > >>>>>>On 07/23/2013 02:39 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Now with a name that is really better than its predecessor. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No, it is longer, easier to mistype. > >>>> > >>>>The new name expresses what is done in a clearer fashion. It's not > >>>>clear that "fate-rsync" updates the samples and not the tests themselves. > >>> > >>>Still not compelling... > >> > >>Sorry to say it, but I also still prefer the old name. > > > >samples-fate-sync? > > Still not compelling. > > 'rsync-fate' would be almost acceptable since it's not longer than > what we have currently. Making it longer, with three words, just > makes it way more cumbersome. Remember why unix commands are short? > So that they're easy to type.
There is tab completion for make targets. Thinking about it some more I think we are going about this the wrong way. First off, "rsync" is just an implementation detail that need not be part of the target name. The command could start using zsync or whatever in the future. Then the order of the words is backwards. sync-fate-samples sync-samples sync-fate are all better names IMO because they follow English language syntax and arguably even shorter. > This is a target that is invoked > fairly often by someone who is doing actual development work, and it > is no fun to have to jump through extra hoops just to type the > command right (or even worse, trying to remember what three-word > combination the committee agreed on to use). I run FATE all the time and I never have to synchronize the samples manually. You guys should learn the wonders of cron jobs ;) > >I'm not going to start collecting exceptions and special cases in that > >part of the code base. Few enough people understand it as-is and it's > >reasonably clean so far. > > This particular line you're proposing to add is pretty non-obvious > as it is, See, we should try not to complicate things beyond comprehension :) > and adding a filter-out for fate-rsync doesn't make it all > that much harder to read IMO. > > That is, my first suggestion is: > > +ifneq (,$(filter check fate%,$(filter-out fate-rsync,$(MAKECMDGOALS)))) > > But apparently you're dead set against that. I disagree with you on > that, and it seems to me that I'm not alone having that opinion. Let's see if we cannot settle on the above suggestions. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
