Re: [PATCH] Makefile: add and use the ".DELETE_ON_ERROR" flag

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

On Mon, Jun 28 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

I do not see a point in complicating the build procedure to avoid
using it.

I'd really understand your and Jeff's concerns if I was proposing some
really complex workaround, but it's just extending & making consistent
the "mv" dance we already use for 1/2 our rules already.

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here. We have agreed that
.DELETE_ON_ERROR and the "mv" dance are orthogonal. So the patch to use
.DELETE_ON_ERROR can move forward, while the "mv" dance can be discussed
later.

Like Junio and Jeff, I don't see much value in the "mv" dance, but that
doesn't mean I want it gone. On the contrary, I would to try a scenario
in which it's usefull.

But that is *orthogonal*. Leave that for another discussion.

Even if you don't care about the end result or making git easier to hack
on for people who don't share your setup,

I don't know about Junio, I do want to make git easier to hack for
people that don't share my setup, but I would like to know what that
setup is.

I'd think that making those rules consistent across the board makes
things less complex, not more.

I don't agree with that. Consistency is just one of the many factors we
have to consider. Even if 90% of instances in the documentation said
"fast forward", that doesn't necessarily mean we should convert the
remaining 10% away from "fast-foward".

First we need to decide what is the end-goal we want to reach, and then
we can go for consistency.

But again, this is orthogonal to this patch, isn't it?

Anyway, let's not discussed this forever. We're clearly getting
nowhere. Just for the record I'm quite miffed about the bar for "I don't
care about this area/platform/use-case, but this person actively sending
me patches in the area says it's helpful to send more patches" is so
low.

I don't think it's quite like that. Skepticism doesn't mean disapproval.

I for one are skeptic of the possitive value of the "mv" dance, but I
wouldn't be surprised in the least if you showed the value in 4 lines of
code. I just haven't seen them yet.

Once again... That's orthogonal to this patch.

Maybe that's all worth it, and I'd be willing to take the Windows devs
at their word that dealing with the make dependency was really *that*
painful. But compare that to carrying a few lines of "mv $@+ $@" to, I
daresay, make the same or larger relative improvement on AIX.

Oh I don't trust them at all. I did maintain some Windows installers for
years, and with a couple of tricks I had no problem building them with
plain Makefiles, with much more complex dependencies.

I'm fairly certain I could make git build for Windows with plain
Makefiles... But one controversy at a time.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras