From: Ulrich Windl <ulrich.windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:47:31 GMT
Subject: Re: On git 1.6 (novice's opinion)
Message-ID: <49D35454.12423.D32681@Ulrich.Windl.rkdvmks1.ngate.uni-regensburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <49D327C4.7000101@op5.se>

On 1 Apr 2009 at 10:37, Andreas Ericsson wrote:

> >> Not only that, but modification times are much more useful with make.
> >> Merging or pulling small changes into a tree shouldn't require a full
> >> rebuild of the entire tree which in some cases could take hours.
> > 
> > Git is not a build system, and I really dislike "full rebuilds", but for 
> > stability, before releasing anything, one should test it with a full rebuild.
> 
> I build all the time. Before and after every commit (merges are one type of
> commit). I rely on file timestamps to be an accurate indicator of when the
> file last changed *on my disk*.
> 

But you are silently assuming that the make files are correct: If a file is not 
being rebuilt, you might be using an old compile without noticing. There a full 
recompile will at least 1) either trigger an error (missing object file) or 2) 
build every file. So I really don't see that relying on file dates is much better 
than doing a full rebuild. That's specifically true if you pull a new tree: If I 
understand things right, EVERY file will have a current date, so you'll rebuild 
everything anyway. So you could also have the "real file dates" and then do "make 
clean; make all". I see no benefit from either approach.

Regards,
Ulrich