Ralf's Remove CVS Id Commits

Gedare Bloom gedare at rtems.org
Fri May 4 17:07:31 UTC 2012

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Ralf Corsepius
<ralf.corsepius at rtems.org> wrote:
> On 05/04/2012 05:07 PM, Thomas Doerfler wrote:
>> Ralf,
>> Am 04.05.2012 16:44, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
>>> On 05/04/2012 04:10 PM, Thomas Doerfler wrote:
>>>> These changes belong together. Nobody wants this change to be done in
>>>> one BSP and NOT done in a different one.
>>> Did you actually have a look into the patches?
>> Yes and no. I read some at the beginning, some in the middle and some at
>> the end of your two patch sequences. I saw that each patch performs
>> similar modifications for different directories or dir trees. I saw that
>> you have committed separate patches with similar changes for each BSP or
>> group of BSPs.
> Correct ...
>> I am sure you don't want the community to inspect each patch separately?
> Pardon, I am the original author of all the files and probably nobody knows
> these better than me. I had applied many much more intrusive patches in
> similar ways many times before.
Just because you have done something one way in the past does not mean
it is the right way to do it or will be acceptable.

> I am surely not perfect and surely do not want exclude something might have
> gone wrong somewhere, but this request of yours makes me sad.
What is wrong with the desire to have ALL commits be
reviewed/reviewable? Even though this changeset only affects comments
in the build system, it still changes RTEMS in a publicly visible way.

I view your commits on the 4.10 branch as egregiously bad with or
without review. I am opposed to removing the $Id$ fields from the
release branches.

>> I assume that the goal/intention of each patch is quite silimar. Am I
>> right here? Or do they have different goals/intentions?
> ... these changes were script-generated ,. the spots changed were trivial to
> parse comment blocks.
Generating changes with a script makes it even more important to have
some level of review. Joel did similar work and posted his changes on
a branch so that at least we can have some public scrutiny before
rewriting half of the files in the tree.


> _______________________________________________
> rtems-devel mailing list
> rtems-devel at rtems.org
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel

More information about the devel mailing list