On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 01:33:16PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (24/03/01 00:35), Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > "I am interested only in these. I do not care about the rest, > > > > > > It's "I *do NOT know* what the rest do". I cannot document something > > > that I have no knowledge of, can I? So as a reasonable start I added > > > only those that I'm familiar with (and I have explicitly stated that > > > in previous emails), and I disagree with the "bad attitude" label. > > > > > > You were aware of: > > > > - several env variables are listed in the document > > - your patch would introduce a new "inconsistency" > > - somebody else would need to make efforts to solve it > > OK. > > > > So the rational for that was that people run "make help" and find > > > out about new build targets, for instance, but there is no way for > > > people to find out about new Kconfig features (and yes, we are talking > > > "new features" here) that are controlled by env variables. We need > > > to do something about it, don't you agree? > > > > Disagree. > > > > I maintain the entire Kconfig, not like you only caring about > > a particular feature. > > > > If you add only two in help, I have no idea about > > what it will look like in the end. > > I am not convinced that it will be in good shape. > > So, it is reasonable for me to reject it. > > Yes, OK. I wasn't talking about this patch in particular at that > point, I was more curious whether you agreed that we need to document > in some way those vars in `make help` or not. If you see value in > documenting them then I can sit down and try to come up with v3 that > will (in one way or another) give a simple "help" description for > each of Kconfig's vars. Perhaps it might be a compromise to let 'make help' point to the kbuild/kconfig documentation? Kind regards, Nicolas
