Subject: Re: change to makepatchsum
To: Alistair G. Crooks <email@example.com>
From: Simon Burge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/06/1999 18:12:11
"Alistair G. Crooks" wrote:
> > Anyone not happy with the following change to makepatchsum, so that it
> > doesn't update the patchsum file if none of the sums change?
> The only reason that I'm not happy with this is that I can't see
> any reason for it. If the patches haven't changed, then there's
> no reason to regenerate the patch-sum file. If they have changed,
> then the new patch-sum file will need to be generated or the new
> patches will not be applied. The only time I did a mass generation
> of patch-sum files was when I generated them in the first place.
> Obviously I'm missing something here.
> So why is this patch necessary?
My argument is that "make makepatchsum" needn't break something that
isn't broken. If you run that over a tree, it can be a handy mechanism
to check which patch-sum files are broken - as it is now, it will modify
every patch-sum file even if it doesn't need to.
Possibly makesum could use the same treatment, but that one hasn't
bitten me yet...