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 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? > 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 at intel.com>
