Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] scripts: make load-devel-config not to appear as executable

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 10:11:32AM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> sorry, I accidentally dropped dev list in one of my replies, readding.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > > > > Given that we should drop the .sh file ending as well as the
> > executable
> > > > > flag - both are not needed to source the file.
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm, it is still a file containing some shell commands, right?
> > > > So why removing the .sh extension?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I wanted to discuss on #dpdk today, but everyone seemed busy today.
> > > So I expected the discussion on file extension to come up on the patch
> > > submission - which is fine and just as it should be.
> > >
> > > My reasoning was primarily to discourage people to think to call it.
> >
> > I think it is the contrary: the executable files for users have no
> > extension.
> 
> 
> I totally understand that for commands in the path, but that doesn't count
> here.
> Could we have anybodies opinion as a tie breaker so I can submit a v2
> without RFC then?
> 
> P.S. I understand there was no objection on changing the file mode - which
> might be quite unobvious in the diff?
> 
Definitely no objection on the file mode change.

For the dropping of the .sh extension, I don't think it matters much. However,
given that .sh files are generally scripts to be executed, I think dropping the
extension will reduce confusion.

Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>