Re: [PATCH] Unify Solaris procfs and largefile handling

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

> > I don't usually include generated files in patch submissions, though:
> > they are heavily frowned upon at least over in GCC because they make
> > review quite difficult, espcially in a case like this where the
> > largefile.m4 change spreads to lots of configure scripts, obscuring the
> > change proper.
> > 
> > Does GDB handle things differently here?
> 
> I don't think there's a hard rule.  If it makes the patch too big for
> sending on the list, then it's fine for sure to not include them.  If
> you don't want to include them, that's fine with my too, but in either
> case it's important to say that you've omitted them on purpose so we
> know it's not an oversight (otherwise I'll complain about them missing
> :)).

Historically, we have generally avoided to include them, and if memory
serves me right, we've asked people to exclude them from the diff
sent for review, because they tend to be mostly noise. We still knew
that the contributor wasn't forgetting to recreate them thanks to
the ChangeLog entry mentioning the list of files being regenerated.

That being said, since the switch to git, and in particular with
the use of git-send-email which is uber handy, it's been easier to
forget about the stripping. I don't think anyone's made a comment
against small diffs of regenerated files.

One thing about having the being sent as part of the review is that
people can then verify that the files are regenerated using the correct
version of the autotools...

-- 
Joel