Re: Another version of cleanfile/cleanpatch

[Oleg Verych]

On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:19:56PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Oleg Verych wrote:
> > 
> > Because of that, i think, following is redundant:
> > 
> > - to check for binary files
> 
> find . -type f | xargs cleanfile

What about patches?

Anyway, by agreement (with myself), i've stopped on having per-file-name
division (prev. message first patch, and that was last design remaining
from cleanfile/cleanpatch). So:

for f in $*
do clean-whitespace $f 2>&1 >/dev/null
done

But this doesn't look like interactive usage, which i've concluded.
Plus copy is saved in $f.clean file, so user can `diff -u` to see any
destruction and possibly report a bug.

[] 
> > - scan whole file for long lines, with useless bunch of messages about
> >   ones. Useless, because script doesn't fix that, it can't do that!
> 
> Still useful to let the human know what is going on, and why.

What i've done was `cleanpatch patch-2.6.21-rc4-rc5`
That's where usefulness comes from ;)

> 	-hpa
____
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/