Am 14.03.2010, 12:19 Uhr, schrieb Gert Doering <g...@greenie.muc.de>:
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:13:26AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
No offense, but do you think it's within objective discussion to call
the patch
"mostly-religious change" (which is a non-objective comment in my book)
if you
"don't really understand the subtleties of autoconf and friends"?
Well, there's two parts to the original patch.
One is the functional patches in configure.ac - I can't say anything
about
that, so I'm not doing so.
The other part is changing all TARGET_* defines to HOST_* defines. This
is not changing functionality or portability, as the very defines are
explicitely set in configure.ac, and they could be MySystemIs_* as far as
functionality is concerned. So the change is because people believe it
to be "the right way" - which makes it "mostly-religious" in my book: not
based on functional changes, but because "it's the right way".
Well, proper naming improves readability, hence maintainability. I think
that's more objective than mere belief.
People will seldomly try to _quantify_ the efforts, but I've more often
than not lost hours debugging some software (not OpenVPN though) because
variables/macros bore misleading names. The objective criterion here
would be "proper names".
... and this is exactly what I proposed: don't include the larger chunk
of the changes right *now*. Wait for the multiple branches to settle
down, and then decide how to adjust the TARGET_* definitions.
Which is a valid technical reason (as much as "use proper names" is).
I was trying to keep religion out though :)
As for now, I have been operating under the premises that different
branches
in the openvpn-devel tree should avoid to cause merge conflicts (unless
unavoidable for required functionality, see ipv6 payload vs. ipv6
transport).
Point taken.
Thanks for your reply.
--
Matthias Andree
