Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I don't know how paranoid we want to be about this, especially the > latter. My general inclination is to prefer "commit" systems as more > robust, but it is just a Makefile. ;-) As an old timer, I've written "gen >$@+ && mv $@+ $@" all the time myself, but it is ugly and felt a bit too conservative. I do not think it is wise to overnight remove all the existing "generate in temporary, move to the final" patterns and delegate $(MAKE) to take care of failed generator with this mechanism, but I actually would feel it probably gives us a cleaner Makefile in the longer term. At least "bugs in $(MAKE)" won't be our sole problem (i.e. all other projects that rely on the feature would share the incentives to see them fixed).
