[patch] advice regarding make regen products

[Jim Cromie]

doc recent advice about including changes
wrought by 'make regen' in patches.

[Karl Williamson]

Jim Cromie wrote:
> doc recent advice about including changes
> wrought by 'make regen' in patches.
>

This helped me understand things. And either I misunderstand, or it
could be made clearer that a series of patches may be an exception to
the rule. Something like:

+submit your patch without them. An exception to this might be if
+you're submitting a series of
+patches: it might be best to submit the regenerated changes
+immediately after the source-changes that caused them, so as to have
+as little effect as possible on the bisectability of your patchset.

[Rafael Garcia-Suarez]

2009/12/31 Jim Cromie <jim.c...@gmail.com>:

> doc recent advice about including changes
> wrought by 'make regen' in patches.

Thanks, applied as ac1cbfb08dc1370fbe2937f6bdd95a86fa70bce4.

[Jim Cromie]

hi Karl,

Im glad it helped.
I was rather hoping that the process might be further discussed and
perhaps refined.

The preference was (originally?) expressed here:
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2009-11/msg00841.html

I invented the separated "derived-products-only" patch approach as
satisfying the preference, but also further highlighting the "make
regen needed".

Pumpkings clearly do the needed 'make regen' before committing such
patches to blead, but separating the derived files would allow a
double-check of sorts.

So - what happens when a make-regen-needed commit is 'make regen'd,
followed by applying the 'derived-files' patch ?
Hopefully, the apply would succeed, and also say 'no files changed'
This would be a nice easy-to-use double-check.

[Jim Cromie]

re-raising the issue, with a patch to undo the advice.