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 at 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? -- Christian Ehrhardt Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd
