Drop last MakeMaker reference

Back when we stopped using MakeMaker, we forgot one reference...

Johannes Schindelin (1):
mingw: drop MakeMaker reference

 config.mak.uname | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

base-commit: 8104ec994ea3849a968b4667d072fedd1e688642
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-146%2Fdscho%2Fno-perl-makemaker-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-146/dscho/no-perl-makemaker-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/146

gitgitgadget

From: Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>

In 20d2a30f8ffe (Makefile: replace perl/Makefile.PL with simple make rules, 2017-12-10), Git stopped using MakeMaker. Therefore, that definition in the MINGW-specific section became useless.

---
 config.mak.uname | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

index b37fa8424c..b88d8451fe 100644
@@ -529,7 +529,6 @@ ifneq (,$(findstring MINGW,$(uname_S)))
 	NO_STRTOUMAX = YesPlease
 	NO_MKDTEMP = YesPlease
 	NO_SVN_TESTS = YesPlease
-	NO_PERL_MAKEMAKER = YesPlease
 	RUNTIME_PREFIX = YesPlease
 	HAVE_WPGMPTR = YesWeDo
 	NO_ST_BLOCKS_IN_STRUCT_STAT = YesPlease

gitgitgadget

Yay!

Is there a way to automate checking for make variables that are set but never used?

Thanks,
Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks!

No, not that I know of...

The biggest problem is that we only add documentation to the beginning of the Makefile by convention, and there is not really any consistent way to parse that documentation to figure out what build variables are handled currently.

Ciao,
Dscho

"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <[email protected]>

Good ;-)
Thanks.

Hi Junio,

Gentle reminder that this has not made it into pu yet...

Thanks,
Dscho

Thanks.

I'll try to make it a habit not to respond to 0/1 (but instead to 1/1) as it is quite inefficient to get to 1/1 from 0/1 at least for me X-<.

Or perhaps GGG can learn to avoid 0/1 for a single-patch topic ;-)

Thanks anyway. Will try to apply directly on top of master.

Hi Junio,

Hehe. I do have something for you there:

https://github.com/git-for-windows/build-extra/blob/master/apply-from-public-inbox.sh

-- snip --

It is easier, and more consistent, to have a cover letter even then, for things like the broader explanation of the context, the changes since the previous iteration, and the range-diff (which would make v2, v3, v4, etc utterly unreadable from my point of view if they were integrated into the single patches, as I used to do with interdiffs).

Thank you!

While we're talking about "directly on top of master"... *after* it got some review, I would love to ask for the same favor for
https://public-inbox.org/git/[email protected]

On the other hand, it is an old bug, I know, and it will break all CI builds for branches that are based off of older commits, anyway. I guess we'll need some sort of horrible hack in the git-sdk-64-minimal thing, to allow for patching this on the CI side, without adding commits to all of those branches. :-(

So: I made up my mind, and that MSYS2 runtime v3.x patch does not need to be fast-tracked; it would not fix all the CI builds...

Ciao,
Dscho

Just my two cents:

As a reviewer, I generally prefer not to see a separate cover letter for a single patch. At least for the first version (I agree it gets unwieldy showing a range-diff after the "---" for subsequent versions, unless it happens to be pretty short).

My reasoning is that I've noticed that many of the GGG-sent patches often end up duplicating quite a bit of content between the cover letter and the commit message of the patch (or worse, putting things only in the cover letter that really could go into the commit message). That doubles the time I spend reading and understanding the patch's rationale (and I'm speaking subjectively here, of course; I didn't measure it).

I don't think it's an _inherent_ problem with a separate cover letter. But something about the workflow causes people to write up over-long cover letters. Which presumably is the fact that they're presented with a PR textbox to write the rationale separately from when they wrote the commit message. So they err on the side of repeating themselves, and never see the two pieces "together" (like the reader will), which makes the redundancy more obvious.

I'd say 99% of the time a single-patch doesn't need any cover letter material at all. And even a multi-patch series really just needs a tl;dr of the problem and a sketch of the solution. In both cases, the commit messages should carry the meat.

(That's all specific to our project, of course; I know many projects don't care about commit messages at all and expect PR descriptions to be the first-class explanations).

-Peff