On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:09 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Another solution might be serialize only lilypond-book and let tex et > al. run concurrently. That should also be harmless, right?
But this is exactly what this patch does. I don't understand your objection. Serializing mechanism in the makefile are obscure and hard to understand, because build systems want to do as many things in parallel as possible. A lock (a file lock, in this case) is the standard solution for serializing concurrent access to a shared resource (a standard problem). What is your objection against using a standard solution? On a philosophical level, it is a lilypond-book implementation detail that it can't deal with concurrent invocation, so the remediation for this problem should be in lilypond-book too. > In total I'm still not convinced by this complexity. > > https://codereview.appspot.com/555360043/ -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [email protected] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
