Show 48 quoted lines
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>
>> Resending some patches that didn't make it, in the correct format
>> and taking into account the feedback I already had on one of the
>> later patches...
>>
>> This patch is in part to deal with peculiarities of our build
>> environment (software packages are installed in their own directory
>> tree, for example, and oftentimes we need to set additional -I options
>> in CPPFLAGS, or -L options in LDFLAGS, among others).
>>
>> However this is also where we put configuration changes to add
>> additional tests, or fix Makefile problems so that everything builds
>> on all of our supported architectures. Probably, much of this patch
>> is useful upstream.
>> ---
>> Makefile | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>> aclocal.m4 | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> config.mak.in | 10 ++++++++-
>> configure.ac | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> git-compat-util.h | 8 +++++-
>> perl/Makefile | 3 +-
>> perl/Makefile.PL | 2 +-
>> t/t7610-mergetool.sh | 25 +++++++++++++----------
>> 8 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 aclocal.m4
>
> Whoa.
>
> Pretty large patch, no? And looking at things like this:
>
>> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
>> index 8fdc421..6058805 100644
>> --- a/Makefile
>> +++ b/Makefile
>> @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ endif
>>
>> CFLAGS = -g -O2 -Wall
>> LDFLAGS =
>> -ALL_CFLAGS = $(CFLAGS)
>> +ALL_CFLAGS = $(CPPFLAGS) $(CFLAGS)
>
> It seems to me that this wants to be a relatively large patch series of
> well-contained, easy-to-review, tiny patches.
>
> Am I correct?