On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:00:50AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Gaetan Nadon <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 06:31 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > > It might be nicer, but could get messy when you consider all the corner > > cases. > > > > True, and the mess can be contained in a macro. Reusing the design for > > ChangeLog is worth a shot. > > Not to mention the script brings a mess of it's own in the build. It > > introduces multiple points of failure. > > Finding a home for the mess is not obvious. > > But the reason we put the ChangeLog mess in a macro is because it > would be used across all the modules. If it's only being used here, > then you might as well put it in the Makefile where it can be clean > instead of a shell variable that's substituted. Unless we think this > is going to be used in a lot places.
I don't see why not. People are going to copy it and/or patch it in anyway, and as with ChangeLog, it'll just get out of hand and we'll wish we'd have used a macro in the first place. Cheers, Daniel
pgpOaYttqP2iO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
