# [PATCH] Makefile: add CC to TRACK_CFLAGS 4 messages from 2010-09-12 to 2010-09-20. Participants: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, Junio C Hamano. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/25087 ## Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, 2010-09-12 22:37 Subject: [PATCH] Makefile: add CC to TRACK_CFLAGS Message-ID: <1284331065-3394-1-git-send-email-avarab@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1284331065-3394-1-git-send-email-avarab%40gmail.com ``` Change the git make process so that everything's rebuilt if the CC is changed. Before we wouldn't rebuilt if e.g. the CC variable was changed from gcc to clang. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason --- Makefile | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index c27e8bc..c46893a 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -1969,7 +1969,7 @@ cscope: $(FIND) . -name '*.[hcS]' -print | xargs cscope -b ### Detect prefix changes -TRACK_CFLAGS = $(subst ','\'',$(ALL_CFLAGS)):\ +TRACK_CFLAGS = $(CC):$(subst ','\'',$(ALL_CFLAGS)):\ $(bindir_SQ):$(gitexecdir_SQ):$(template_dir_SQ):$(prefix_SQ) GIT-CFLAGS: FORCE -- 1.7.2.3.313.gcd15 ``` ## Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, 2010-09-19 19:27 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Makefile: add CC to TRACK_CFLAGS Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/AANLkTikBP3pJ7ZN9jC9yQeVKssgr2KMpaY-nQtpJZiP-%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1284331065-3394-1-git-send-email-avarab@gmail.com> ``` On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 22:37, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > Change the git make process so that everything's rebuilt if the CC is > changed. Before we wouldn't rebuilt if e.g. the CC variable was > changed from gcc to clang. Is there a reason for why this didn't get picked up other than falling through the cracks? ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2010-09-20 01:46 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Makefile: add CC to TRACK_CFLAGS Message-ID: <7viq21uqzb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7viq21uqzb.fsf%40alter.siamese.dyndns.org In-Reply-To: ``` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > Is there a reason for why this didn't get picked up other than falling > through the cracks? Simply because I wasn't actively collecting new topics during feature freeze, especially for small stuff that I knew that resending after release would be trivial and more efficient use of my time than queuing it in 'pu' and having to look at it every time I do another push-out in order to decide when to merge it to 'next'. After a feature release like 1.7.3, my preference is to do these in this order: (0) take a deep breath and have bit of break ;-); (1) rewind 'next' to match 1.7.3 with selected topics that has been cooking there, rename 'maint' to 'maint-1.7.2', and start 'maint' at 1.7.3; (2) have a quiet period for at least a few days, not touching 'master' at all, to make sure things are stable, giving users time to give us feedback, and giving us time to assess potential damages caused by unanticipated regressions; (3) collect brown-paper-bag regression fixes, if necessary, during the period overlapping with (2), queuing them to 'next'; (4) have (3) graduate and issue 1.7.3.1 out of 'maint'; And after all that, open the 1.7.4 cycle, queuing new topics. That would also be a good time to backmerge the safe fixes (but not new features) that went to 1.7.3 to maint-1.7.2, and cut 1.7.2.4, so that it will be a reasonably solid base to apply later security fixes if necessary. ``` ## Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, 2010-09-20 13:38 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Makefile: add CC to TRACK_CFLAGS Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/AANLkTikLCFb3GrMxP7dLPB%3Deggc2w6FOq%3D7ZpdSYpnki%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <7viq21uqzb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> ``` On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:46, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > >> Is there a reason for why this didn't get picked up other than falling >> through the cracks? > > Simply because I wasn't actively collecting new topics during feature > freeze, especially for small stuff that I knew that resending after > release would be trivial and more efficient use of my time than queuing it > in 'pu' and having to look at it every time I do another push-out in order > to decide when to merge it to 'next'. Rigth, I have no problem doing $whatever to get patches in, but the problem I often have is that I don't know what state things are in, and what I'm supposed to do at any given time. E.g. in this case I submitted the "send-email: use catfile() to concatenate files" patch 2 days after this one, that one got into the next "What's cooking in git.git" post. Since both were trivial fixes and there was no comment on this one I was inclined to think that it just fell through. Should I generally re-send patches that I've sent, haven't had comments, and haven't appeared in subsequent "What's cooking in git.git" posts (given that some reasonable amount of time has passed since the original send) ? Then there's stuff like my "git-am: Ignore whitespace before patches" which had some comments, but which *I* still think is OK as-is. Should I just keep pushing stuff like that until someone tells me to stop? Thanks, from a list member somewhat confused about the patch queue :) ```