Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 3/29/18 14:43, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Hm, what's wrong just doing it in the normal build? It's a desired build
>>> artifact, so I really don't see any argument for not building it by
>>> default? Don't quite see what the advantage of doing it during make
>>> check would be?
>> I meant running something that would check that the file compiles,
>> without actually producing the output. For the regular docs, there's a
>> couple of orders of magnitude of difference in time to do the check vs.
>> the actual build.
> Or we do both.
I'm OK with adding INSTALL to the default build target in doc/src/sgml;
the incremental cost isn't large and we now realize there'd be useful
error detection. I'm *not* OK with expanding the scope of "make check"
to include building the documentation. It's never had anything to do
with docs before and I see no reason to start now. Personally, when
I'm working on a patch, the doc updates if any are a completely separate
matter. I don't want to waste cycles on testing docs when I'm trying
to test code, any more than I would like the reverse (ie forcing a docs
build to build code too).
regards, tom lane
