"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I agree that make sucks etc. but duplication sucks more (and would suck
regardless of what tool we use). Here we do have a simple method (include
files) that is suitable for addressing that. I'd assume we'd use something
similar with whichever tool we'd use.
I don't mind using include files, I mind adding more dependencies between
projects.
Great. As an aside I just ran that and got:
error: unknown option `rebase'
usage: ...
Maybe it's 'git pull --rebase upstream master', I didn't try it and I don't
type it manually very often because I have a script to do this.
Whether it's a command or a couple, that doesn't change the fact that I
need to run the same command four times, and in parallel if at all
possible. It's a perfect candidate for automation, and I haven't seen an
argument the makefile isn't a good place for that.
I guess we have different usage patterns, which isn't really a surprise.
Anyway putting rebase in the makefile is a secondary issue, that's probably
not worth discussing now.
> I've managed to get by fine with using shell scripts for stuff like
> this.
Do you need to upload the dlang.org website quickly and without error?
Do enough people need to that it warrants being in the makefile instead of a
local shell script? Does everyone do it the same way?
Overall I have difficulty understanding counterarguments.
Challenge: "We should eliminate some unpleasant duplication."
Response: "Make sucks. Make includes are unreliable for mythical
unexplained reasons. You don't know git. You should do scripts instead."
The response just doesn't follow. Care to clarify what you think we should
be doing here?
Apologies for not being clear.
Challenge: "We should eliminate some unpleasant duplication."
Response: "We should avoid adding more dependencies between projects at all
costs."
