<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.26.0">
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 20:48 -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On 2010-03-24 19:57, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
> In a perfect world, no. This was done so that platform not having the
> doc generation tool
> can still be able to read the doc in txt form. A side-effect of having a
> file both in git and
> generated is that git will refuse to rebase due to a non clean directory
> following a make.
> The doc generation is disabled by default, so this should not happen
> often. I think the patch you
> have submitted is the best one can do under the circumstances.
AFAIK no other generated txt files are in git. I somehow doubt that
hw/dmx/doc/dmx.txt is more important than, say,
hw/xfree86/doc/sgml/DESIGN.txt which is also generated and not in git.
Any objections to a patch for their removal?
Certainly not. I had submitted a patch for their removal but it was not accepted. I then submitted<BR>
a patch to delete the .txt but keep a copy in git under .text. It was not accepted either. Someone<BR>
somewhere will be inconvenienced by whatever option is chosen. The perfect world would where<BR>
all platforms have all of the doc generation tools at the correct level.<BR>
Yet another solution is to git ignore .txt. It will not interfere with normal git<BR>
operations, but anyone who wants to update it (once in a blue moon) will be warned to override the ignore.<BR>
PS I'll review the macros for sgml.
<A HREF="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</A>: X.Org development
Archives: <A HREF="http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel">http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel</A>
Info: <A HREF="http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel">http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel</A>