Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] contrib/subtree/Makefile: Standardisation pass

2014-05-06 Thread James Denholm
Junio C Hamano wrote: >It is funny to see sign-off on 0/5 ;-) Yeah, I wasn't quite sure of exact protocol, and sort-of defaulted to sign-all-the-things mode. >By the way, this is v3, not v2, no? It was somewhat confusing to >see Peff saying "filfre to add my reviewed-by" on v2, noticing you >po

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] contrib/subtree/Makefile: Standardisation pass

2014-05-06 Thread Junio C Hamano
James Denholm writes: > contrib/subtree/Makefile is a shambles in regards to it's consistency > with other makefiles, which makes subtree overly painful to include in > build scripts. > > The main issues are that calls are made to git itself in the build > process, and that a subtree-exclusive va

[PATCH v2 0/5] contrib/subtree/Makefile: Standardisation pass

2014-05-06 Thread James Denholm
contrib/subtree/Makefile is a shambles in regards to it's consistency with other makefiles, which makes subtree overly painful to include in build scripts. The main issues are that calls are made to git itself in the build process, and that a subtree-exclusive variable is used for specifying the e

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] contrib/subtree/Makefile: Standardisation pass

2014-05-06 Thread James Denholm
On 6 May 2014 08:01, Jeff King wrote: > [fixed David's address in cc list] Ah, right. Wasn't sure what was going on there. > On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 07:54:30AM +1000, James Denholm wrote: > >> Given that subtree subtree doesn't really generate a lot of discussion, >> would it be advisable to wra

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] contrib/subtree/Makefile: Standardisation pass

2014-05-05 Thread Jeff King
[fixed David's address in cc list] On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 07:54:30AM +1000, James Denholm wrote: > Given that subtree subtree doesn't really generate a lot of discussion, > would it be advisable to wrap this up (barring further discussion) and send > it off to Junio rather than waiting for furth

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] contrib/subtree/Makefile: Standardisation pass

2014-05-05 Thread James Denholm
On 5 May 2014 15:08:04 GMT+10:00, Jeff King wrote: >On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 10:49:30PM +1000, James Denholm wrote: > >> The main issues are that calls are made to git itself in the build >> process, and that a subtree-exclusive variable is used for specifying >> the exec path. Patches 1/5 through

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] contrib/subtree/Makefile: Standardisation pass

2014-05-04 Thread Jeff King
On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 10:49:30PM +1000, James Denholm wrote: > The main issues are that calls are made to git itself in the build > process, and that a subtree-exclusive variable is used for specifying > the exec path. Patches 1/5 through 3/5 resolve these. > > The "cleanup" fixes (4/5 and 5/5)

[PATCH v2 0/5] contrib/subtree/Makefile: Standardisation pass

2014-05-03 Thread James Denholm
contrib/subtree/Makefile is a shambles in regards to it's consistency with other makefiles, which makes subtree overly painful to include in build scripts. The main issues are that calls are made to git itself in the build process, and that a subtree-exclusive variable is used for specifying the e