Re: Branches & directories
- From
- Hilco Wijbenga <hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 3, 2011, 17:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAE1pOi2Vzqp2X95AE6DHhPvCCUURS+H4rTqr53-kxCuRhzSS4g@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <vpqaa9ijzt4.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
On 3 October 2011 00:32, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> Hilco Wijbenga <hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com> writes: > >> Yes, I meant it literally. And, no, Git could not possibly know so it >> would have to be optional behaviour. But it's probably a lot of work >> for (for most people) little gain. > > Not only little gain, but also important risk: users of this feature > would be likely to spend hours debugging something just because some > files weren't recompiled at the right time.
Possibly. When I do a git pull or similar I do a full build regardless. I don't know of any build tool that triggers a build because of a deleted source file (that's an actual problem I ran into only a couple of weeks ago). Of course, in that scenario the build was succeeding where it should have been failing. :-)
> If you want to optimize the number of files compiled by "make", then > ccache is your friend. This one is safe.
This is all C, right? I'm in Java land so I would assume ccache is of no use to me. And we certainly don't use make.