Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > 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
