i've attached a gzipped patch against 2.5.56 for reorganizing
the filesystem menu under "make xconfig", and i'm certainly
open to feedback/comments/criticism/large sums of money.
some points about this patch:
1) if anyone wants to carefully check the dependencies and
make sure they're correct, that would be nice.
2) perhaps making sure the dependencies match the claims
in the help screens would be helpful. i noticed that
the help screens sometimes make dependency claims that
are wildly untrue, but i didn't want to mess with that
stuff yet as i wasn't totally comfortable.
3) much to my delight, i found out by accident that i can
add leading asterisks to menu and config lines with no
effect on the eventual config step -- this makes it
wonderfully easy to edit and reorganize using emacs
outline mode, particularly showing subdependencies.
is this just a fluke? obviously, it's easy enough to
strip out the leading asterisks in the final version,
but if they're not doing any harm, i'd just as soon
leave them in.
thoughts?
rday
>
> i've attached a gzipped patch against 2.5.56 for reorganizing
> the filesystem menu under "make xconfig", and i'm certainly
> open to feedback/comments/criticism/large sums of money.
Any special reason that you gzipped and attached it?
That's a good way to have some people not bother looking at it.
~Randy
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > i've attached a gzipped patch against 2.5.56 for reorganizing
> > the filesystem menu under "make xconfig", and i'm certainly
> > open to feedback/comments/criticism/large sums of money.
>
>
> Any special reason that you gzipped and attached it?
> That's a good way to have some people not bother looking at it.
um ... because it was 80K unzipped and 20K zipped? i just
wanted to get some feedback before submitting it as an
official patch, that's all.
rday
Hi,
> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 07:57:33 -0500 (EST)
> From: Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]>
> Subject: restructuring of filesystems config menu
>
> i've attached a gzipped patch against 2.5.56 for reorganizing
> the filesystem menu under "make xconfig", and i'm certainly
> open to feedback/comments/criticism/large sums of money.
Good luck with those. :)
I finally looked at this on 2.5.59. The fs menu certainly
needs some help/work, so I'd like to see you keep plugging away
at this. I didn't see much feedback -- was there feedback?
Maybe on a different subject/thread? A newer version that I
missed?
> some points about this patch:
>
> 1) if anyone wants to carefully check the dependencies and
> make sure they're correct, that would be nice.
>
> 2) perhaps making sure the dependencies match the claims
> in the help screens would be helpful. i noticed that
> the help screens sometimes make dependency claims that
> are wildly untrue, but i didn't want to mess with that
> stuff yet as i wasn't totally comfortable.
>
> 3) much to my delight, i found out by accident that i can
> add leading asterisks to menu and config lines with no
> effect on the eventual config step -- this makes it
> wonderfully easy to edit and reorganize using emacs
> outline mode, particularly showing subdependencies.
I find it odd that "help" in a Kconfig file can be spelled
"help" or "---help---", but "--help--" leads to errors.
> is this just a fluke? obviously, it's easy enough to
> strip out the leading asterisks in the final version,
> but if they're not doing any harm, i'd just as soon
> leave them in.
I expected to just see the filesystems listed in alpha order,
but I don't have a problem with the groupings that you
have made for them.
Thanks,
~Randy
On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 07:57:33 -0500 (EST)
> > From: Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]>
> > Subject: restructuring of filesystems config menu
> >
> > i've attached a gzipped patch against 2.5.56 for reorganizing
> > the filesystem menu under "make xconfig", and i'm certainly
> > open to feedback/comments/criticism/large sums of money.
>
> I finally looked at this on 2.5.59. The fs menu certainly
> needs some help/work, so I'd like to see you keep plugging away
> at this. I didn't see much feedback -- was there feedback?
> Maybe on a different subject/thread? A newer version that I
> missed?
nope, didn't get much feedback. i sent the patch directly to
linus but it hasn't yet been added. perhaps in 2.5.60?
> I find it odd that "help" in a Kconfig file can be spelled
> "help" or "---help---", but "--help--" leads to errors.
i did notice some strange parsing rules there.
> I expected to just see the filesystems listed in alpha order,
> but I don't have a problem with the groupings that you
> have made for them.
i thought about alphabetical order, but i settled on the more
common options at the top, and the more obscure ones further
down.
if i don't see a patch incorporated in a subsequent release, am
i supposed to submit it again? what's the proper protocol?
rday
"Robert P. J. Day" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 07:57:33 -0500 (EST)
> > > From: Robert P. J. Day <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: restructuring of filesystems config menu
> > >
> > > i've attached a gzipped patch against 2.5.56 for reorganizing
> > > the filesystem menu under "make xconfig", and i'm certainly
> > > open to feedback/comments/criticism/large sums of money.
> >
> > I finally looked at this on 2.5.59. The fs menu certainly
> > needs some help/work, so I'd like to see you keep plugging away
> > at this. I didn't see much feedback -- was there feedback?
> > Maybe on a different subject/thread? A newer version that I
> > missed?
>
> nope, didn't get much feedback. i sent the patch directly to
> linus but it hasn't yet been added. perhaps in 2.5.60?
It doesn't apply cleanly to 2.5.59 or later, so it won't be
applied.
> > I expected to just see the filesystems listed in alpha order,
> > but I don't have a problem with the groupings that you
> > have made for them.
>
> i thought about alphabetical order, but i settled on the more
> common options at the top, and the more obscure ones further
> down.
>
> if i don't see a patch incorporated in a subsequent release, am
> i supposed to submit it again? what's the proper protocol?
Get feedback (as much as possible), act on feedback -> make
changes, re-re-re-submit...
~Randy