Am Sonntag, 10. Juli 2011, 12:50:19 schrieb Phil Holmes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Graham Percival" <[email protected]> > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 01:16:21PM +0100, Graham Percival wrote: > > I think we should use logfiles by default -- actually, we should > > use logfiles exclusively -- and then display bits of logfiles if > > that seems helpful in debugging problems. > > My concern with this is that we may get a lot of people surprised and > confused by this - "hey, where's all my usual output gone - something must > be wrong!".
But once they have realized how a changed build system works, I don't see any disadvantage. So, it's just the first time that they might be confused (if there is some progress and no error messages, I would think they are not really confused, but astonished that something is new...). > By making it as it is by default, but with the ability to > switch off the output to the screen if you know what you're doing, we avoid > that problem. But we don't solve the problem of the log output. I mean, how many people really **want** the full output from the build system? Shouldn't the default be tailored to what most users normally want. If they want something else, then they can do that with command-line options. But I don't think it's the best idea to for the majority to use a command-line option to get the output they prefer (or simply live with a sub-optimal output, because typing the same command-line options over and over again is an even larger PITA). Cheesr, Reinhold -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Reinhold Kainhofer, [email protected], http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
