From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 24 00:01:24 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8BA16A421 for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:01:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail1.fluidhosting.com (mail1.fluidhosting.com [204.14.90.61]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 74FE543D49 for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:01:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 93817 invoked by uid 399); 24 Jul 2005 00:01:22 -0000 Received: from mail1.fluidhosting.com (66.150.201.101) by mail1.fluidhosting.com with SMTP; 24 Jul 2005 00:01:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 24561 invoked by uid 399); 24 Jul 2005 00:01:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.15.101?) (dougb@dougbarton.net@67.20.70.103) by mail1.fluidhosting.com with SMTP; 24 Jul 2005 00:01:21 -0000 Message-ID: <42E2DA50.2000205@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:01:20 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050722) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pawel Worach References: <200507231942.j6NJgdks037508@repoman.freebsd.org> <42E2A029.1090404@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <42E2A029.1090404@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src ObsoleteFiles.inc X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:01:24 -0000 Pawel Worach wrote: > While you are at it can you add this one too. Done. Please note for next time that you need to add a comment indicating why the file was removed. This can easily be found from the CVS logs. BTW, this is exactly why I don't like this mechanism for cleaning stale files. This list was, as I predicted it would be, quite literally out of date when it was committed. This is with all due respect to the effort that went into producing it. It's the methodology that I'm opposed to here. I much prefer the dynamic method suggested by myself, mezz, and others which scans the directories and compares the ages of the files to a known value. This not only has the benefit of not needing a static list to support it, but it also has the benefit of alerting you to pieces left behind when you (for example) add a NO_FOO knob to your make.conf file to avoid building part of the world. I would really like to see us reexamine the thought process behind this before we invest a lot more time into the static method. I think that the dynamic method will buy us more down the road. hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection