Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:37:34 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: dougb@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, wkoszek@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, rwatson@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE in GENERIC Message-ID: <86DE85B0-2556-48A3-8AB0-C4969823A93E@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20100115.124809.21010533849792633.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <FE2858BE-2302-4980-BE73-32885AFBC7C2@mac.com> <20100115.110528.849557997928257031.imp@bsdimp.com> <D7A4BDAE-9CF6-45B3-8574-5E7DE89E2FCE@mac.com> <20100115.124809.21010533849792633.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 15, 2010, at 11:48 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : PITA != hard. If we're not willing to put in the effort to fix > : something, I don't think we should call it hard to do. We should > : call it like it is: non-trivial, involved or significant. Heck, > : we can even call it a major undertaking. But hard? No, I don't > : think it's hard at all. > > Agreed. But having retrofitted grammars in the past, coupled with the > fact that config doesn't create a proper parse tree means we'd be > rewriting huge portions of config, almost a complete rewrite from > scratch, I'd say, would be necessary. And then you've sunk a huge > amount of time into solving a tiny problem. Rewriting config should > produce more benefits than just this one problem. That's why I called > it hard. Yes. I do believe that it's a "big job" and it's fair to ask whether it's worth. > : How does this address the "I don't want everything, I just want > : my CVS keyword" example? *snip* > I don't understand the "I just want my CVS keywords expanded" > example. The inspiration came from Peter Jeremy's email in this thread. -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86DE85B0-2556-48A3-8AB0-C4969823A93E>