On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 02:00:07PM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu> wrote:
> >> I think having the HASHVALUE_ONLY define is not a good idea -- it just
> >> makes the patch harder to read. I suggest just removing the old code
> >> and putting the new code in place. (That's why we have revision
> >> control.)
> >>
> > One thing it helps is building an old version and a new version
> > for comparative testing. Otherwise, you could end up with an apples-to-
> > oranges comparison. I certainly think that the final patch should not
> > have it, but it is useful now for testing and comparisons.
>
> Yes, that's why Xiao did it that way. However, we traditionally just
> submit a patch with only the changes and it's up to the person testing
> to have an identical build-tree without the patch for testing.
> Another reason for it is that even if you build without the define,
> the patch author may have mistakenly added something outside the ifdef
> which could impact testing.
>
> I agree with Alvaro that we should submit it as a standard change patch.
Okay, that makes sense.
Ken
