Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/34] fsmonitor-fs-listen-macos: stub in backend for MacOS

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:56:37 +0200

On Tue, Jul 27 2021, Jeff Hostetler wrote:

> On 7/26/21 7:26 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Johannes Schindelin <[email-masked]> writes:
>> 
>>> Hi Ævar,
>>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 16 2021, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>>>
> ...
>
>
> I'm not sure that there is a "correct" answer here, but for the sake
> of harmony, in V4 I'll set this to "darwin" and update the name of
> the backend driver source file to match.  So that we are consistently
> using 1 term throughout "Makefile" and "config.mak.uname".
>
> 	ifeq ($(uname_S),Darwin)
> 	...
> 		FSMONITOR_DAEMON_BACKEND = darwin
> 	endif
>
>
>
> FWIW, I suspect that it is not worth the effort to directly set the
> backend name from $(uname_S).  For example, on Windows we currently have
> two different uname values depending on which compiler is being used.
>
> 	ifeq ($(uname_S),Windows)
> 	...
> 		FSMONITOR_DAEMON_BACKEND = win32
> 	endif
>
> 	ifneq (,$(findstring MINGW,$(uname_S)))
> 	...
> 		FSMONITOR_DAEMON_BACKEND = win32
> 	endif
>
>
> Also, since the backend layer is highly platform-specific, it may be
> a while (if ever) before we have universal coverage for all platforms.
> Until then, we can simply set $FSMONITOR_DAEMON_BACKEND to a literal
> value on a platform-by-platform basis as support is added.

Re "harmony": For what it's worth I don't think you should change it on
my accord.

I should probably have more explicitly said (but I've also been trying
to check the general verbosity of my E-Mails), that when I read a series
like this and have some general trivial comments like this, I mean them
as something like:

    Just a thought while reading this through, i.e. a person familiar
    with the general codebase but not necessarily your specific
    are. Maybe this suggestion makes things easier/simpler, but if you
    think not and decide not to take the suggestion that's fine too.

I.e. that along with the general implicit suggestion that I'd say
applies in general on list that if someone is perplexed by a patch by
default that's a comment on the commit message.

That person (i.e. me in this case) could also just be hopelessly
confused & nothing needs to change. When I get comments like that I
sometimes change things, sometimes not. You should do the same.

As noted in another reply on this general thread & what's cooking I seem
to have poked a bit of a hornet's nest here that I wasn't expecting to
poke. I'd not been following earlier rounds of this topic, and didn't
know that it had (seemingly) reached some phase of critical updates only
in the minds of its authors.