Re: [PATCH] contrib/credential: Amend and harmonize Makefiles

From: Thomas Uhle <thomas.uhle@mailbox.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Oct 11, 2025, 19:18 UTC
Message-ID: <a13ed806-a04f-baae-ffa2-f1d12a0b3b0b@mailbox.tu-dresden.de>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqikgl5nj3.fsf@gitster.g>

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> [...]  Please
> fetch from my 'seen' branch from any of the public mirrors, and
> check what is queued as ac6152f0 (contrib/credential: Amend and
> harmonize Makefiles, 2025-10-10) is what you expected me to have
> without your mailer corrupting the patch contents.

Yes, it is correct.

Show 9 quoted lines

> [...]  So it smells that viable choices are only three:
>
> * if the original did not use $(MAIN), leave them as-is and spell
>   the values (like "git-credential-osxkeychain") out.
>
> * if the original did use $(MAIN), leave them as-is, without rename
>   it to a longer and more typo-prone $(GIT_CREDENTIAL_HELPER).  Or
>
> * if the original did use $(MAIN), spell the values out instead.

So the combination of the first and last option seems best to not keep these differences within the same context (contrib/credential). Do you agree?

Show 6 quoted lines

> I prefer to do "clean-up" patches and "functional" patches
> separately, and introduction of the install target is the latter, so
> perhaps leave all the changes to Makefile macro trick out of this
> patch and concentrate only on the new "install" target?  And then do
> "clean-up" using Makefile macro if you want, with merit of such a
> change defended separately.

Doesn't it make sense to clean up first and then add the install target rule in another patch if you prefer to split this patch? That way I could keep the first line of the commit message intact and the name of the branch you have chosen would still match. Moreover, it seems to me that we are not that far from agreeing on a "clean-up" version.

> Thanks.

Thanks for your comprehensive feedback.

Best regards,

Thomas Uhle