On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 08:39:13AM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 06:06:44PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar via Mutt-dev > wrote: > > On 2026-05-31T15:57:30+0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > > On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 07:57:43AM +0200, Rene Kita wrote: > > > > Please bikeshed the script name 'build' and if it should be placed in > > > > the root directory. I kept the name from w3m, but there it is placed > > > > in the test directory which makes it more obvious what the intend is. > > > > > > :D. I don't want to dictate, since you've put the effort in. My only > > > comment is that "build" sounds like something an ordinary user might try > > > running after checking out the git repos. So I would vote for moving the > > > script somewhere (under .builds if that is legal), and/or renaming it to > > > something less tempting to run, such as ci-build. > > > > I would like to avoid hidden dirs. Could we use something like > > scripts/? > > The .builds directory is dictated by the sr.ht CI system. (Rene, please > correct me if I'm wrong). Since we have the .yml files there already, it > didn't seem too odd to have the "build" script which they all use there too.
It's dictated, indeed. I also did think a bit about this while I couldn't sleep and I'm also not really happy with using .builds/build. On the one hand it makes totally sense to have it there as all the build manifests use it. On the other hand this script is intended to be used by developers to test all relevant build configurations locally and discoverability in a hidden directory is not that great. That's why I placed it in the tests directory in w3m, it's a helper to test the build. Unfortunately mutt does not have a test directory. Unless we start adding tests, hence adding a directory for them, I think .builds is the best choice. I would add a note to doc/devel-notes.txt to make devs aware of the script.
