Re: [PATCH] Makefile: add and use the ".DELETE_ON_ERROR" flag

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 1, 2021, 03:54 UTC
Message-ID: <60dd3c92ef44b_174a220836@natae.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <875yxxgkav.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 28 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> > I do not see a point in complicating the build procedure to avoid
> > using it.
> 
> I'd really understand your and Jeff's concerns if I was proposing some
> really complex workaround, but it's just extending & making consistent
> the "mv" dance we already use for 1/2 our rules already.

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here. We have agreed that .DELETE_ON_ERROR and the "mv" dance are orthogonal. So the patch to use .DELETE_ON_ERROR can move forward, while the "mv" dance can be discussed later.

Like Junio and Jeff, I don't see much value in the "mv" dance, but that doesn't mean I want it gone. On the contrary, I would to try a scenario in which it's usefull.

But that is *orthogonal*. Leave that for another discussion.

> Even if you don't care about the end result or making git easier to hack
> on for people who don't share your setup,

I don't know about Junio, I do want to make git easier to hack for people that don't share my setup, but I would like to know what that setup is.

> I'd think that making those rules consistent across the board makes
> things less complex, not more.

I don't agree with that. Consistency is just one of the many factors we have to consider. Even if 90% of instances in the documentation said "fast forward", that doesn't necessarily mean we should convert the remaining 10% away from "fast-foward".

First we need to decide what is the end-goal we want to reach, and then we can go for consistency.

But again, this is orthogonal to this patch, isn't it?

Show 5 quoted lines

> Anyway, let's not discussed this forever. We're clearly getting
> nowhere. Just for the record I'm quite miffed about the bar for "I don't
> care about this area/platform/use-case, but this person actively sending
> me patches in the area says it's helpful to send more patches" is so
> low.

I don't think it's quite like that. Skepticism doesn't mean disapproval.

I for one are skeptic of the possitive value of the "mv" dance, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if you showed the value in 4 lines of code. I just haven't seen them yet.

Once again... That's orthogonal to this patch.

> Maybe that's all worth it, and I'd be willing to take the Windows devs
> at their word that dealing with the make dependency was really *that*
> painful. But compare that to carrying a few lines of "mv $@+ $@" to, I
> daresay, make the same or larger relative improvement on AIX.

Oh I don't trust them at all. I did maintain some Windows installers for years, and with a couple of tricks I had no problem building them with plain Makefiles, with much more complex dependencies.

I'm fairly certain I could make git build for Windows with plain Makefiles... But one controversy at a time.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras