Ralf's Remove CVS Id Commits

[Gedare Bloom]

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.

-Gedare

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