[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Questionable "cosmetic changes" commits
From: |
Raghav Gururajan |
Subject: |
Re: Questionable "cosmetic changes" commits |
Date: |
Sat, 05 Dec 2020 20:37:32 +0000 |
Hi Mark!
> Meanwhile, you've only provided a rationale for 1 out of 3 of the kinds
> of changes made in these commits.
>
> Do you have an explanation for why you are removing comments in your
> "cosmetic changes" commits? For example, the following two commits
> remove comments that explain why 'propagated-inputs' are needed:
>
> https://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=c3264f9e100ad6aefe5216002b68f3bfdcf6be95
> https://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=416b1b9f56b514677660b56992cea1c78e00f519
>
> What's your rationale for doing this? Am I the only one here who finds
> this practice objectionable? It's not even mentioned in the commit logs.
I think the comments are useful for non-trivial cases. In these definitions,
the inputs were propagated because they were mentioned in .pc files.
Propagation because of pkg-config is trivial. So I removed the comments.
Regards,
RG.
- Re: Questionable "cosmetic changes" commits, (continued)
- Re: Questionable "cosmetic changes" commits, Hartmut Goebel, 2020/12/02
- Re: Questionable "cosmetic changes" commits, Raghav Gururajan, 2020/12/03
- Cosmetic changes commits as a potential security risk (was Re: Questionable "cosmetic changes" commits), Mark H Weaver, 2020/12/05
- Re: Questionable "cosmetic changes" commits, Raghav Gururajan, 2020/12/20
- Re: Cosmetic changes commits as a potential security risk (was Re: Questionable "cosmetic changes" commits), Raghav Gururajan, 2020/12/20