On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:09:14AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Trevor Saunders <tbsau...@tbsaunde.org> > wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:46:19AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Trevor Saunders <tbsau...@tbsaunde.org> > >> wrote: > >> > Hi! > >> > > >> > To be clear I only want to talk about gcc/**/*.c but *not* testsuite/ > >> > > >> > The Question of changing from .c to a more standard C++ file extension > >> > has come up a couple times. I believe its reasonable accurate to say > >> > the consensus is moderately in favor of doing this at some point. The > >> > biggest concern was of course being able to access pre rename history > >> > easily. I know git will either handle this by default or with an option > >> > depending on the command, and svn claims it can handle renames so we > >> > should be good on that front. The other question was if we should wait > >> > to do this at the same time as a reorganization of directory structure. > >> > That was back in august 2013, about a year and a half ago, and we > >> > haven't done it or really moved forward with a plan to do it. It seems > >> > to me that if we do this part now we can then deal with moving files > >> > into directories later piece by piece and not need to move everything at > >> > once. If we want to go ahead with renaming we should pick a time, I > >> > think some people have advanced the idea of doing it just after a > >> > branch, on the other hand last year we held off on the big gimple > >> > refactoring until after the branch had released a .1. > >> > > >> > thoughts? > >> > >> I see no value in doing this but making branch maintainance awkward. > > > > I think its mostly valuable to cause less confusion of new people, and > > though it is a simpler thing every little thing can be the thing that > > breaks the cammel's back. > > I don't buy this kind of argument given that the switch to C++ has > complicated things instead of simplifying them.
personally I think C++ has made gcc substantially easier to understand, but that oppinion could be biased by all sorts of things. IN any case I'd be interested to know what's more complicated so I might try and fix them, but that's pretty off topic. > > Yes its not all that hard to configure > > editors and what not to handle it properly, but every new person needs > > to do it, and looking up configuration options takes time that can more > > profitably be spent. > > > > That said keeping backports as easy as possible is also certainly > > important. I'm curious why renames hurt doing backports, I'm pretty > > confident git cherry-pick will handle it for you, and if you like patch > > files for some reason I'd think its easy to fix up with sed though > > running that for each backport by hand would get a little old. > > So if git can simplify the issues then the appropriate time to do this > mass rename is when we switch to git. fair enough, that's an issue I personally care about much more. However I was reminded of this one, and it would be easy enough to do so figured I'd ask. Trev this. > > Richard. > > > > > Trev > > > >> > >> Richard. > >> > >> > Trev
