From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66A3275D for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:26:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Aug 2016 02:26:36 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,465,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="1028887713" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.36]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 03 Aug 2016 02:26:33 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 03 Aug 2016 10:26:33 +0025 Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 10:26:33 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Christian Ehrhardt Cc: Thomas Monjalon , dev Message-ID: <20160803092633.GB24816@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1470146092-12115-1-git-send-email-christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com> <7413793.FKEpEWkE5V@xps13> <1518657.ZZVjD1fj2f@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Research and =?iso-8859-1?Q?De=ACvel?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?opment?= Ireland Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] scripts: make load-devel-config not to appear as executable X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 09:26:37 -0000 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 > 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