[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: branching stable/2.22?
From: |
Jonas Hahnfeld |
Subject: |
Re: branching stable/2.22? |
Date: |
Sat, 12 Sep 2020 22:52:48 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.36.5 |
Am Samstag, den 12.09.2020, 14:21 +0200 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
> >> > make out=www out-www/en/notation.pdf
> >>
> >> Aah, I tried without `out=www`. This incantation is good enough for
> >> me, thanks. No further action needed.
> >
> > Actually that's the same as before, no?
>
> No. Previously, `notation.pdf` was a first-class target: If you
> deleted it, a call to `make doc` rebuilt it. This is no longer the
> case: Today, creating this PDF file is a side effect only.
Right, that one is on me:
commit f427a26e3d238af25cd4a8fe385be5faebd0c59f
Author: Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo@hahnjo.de>
Date: Mon Aug 31 22:01:01 2020 +0200
doc: Use real target for result of build-doc-tree
Avoid rebuilding the tree when recursing into Documentation/ multiple
times during 'make doc' which can take a considerable amount of time.
While at it, give 'make website' the same treatment and clean up some
variables and their uses or remove if not referenced anymore.
See https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/402 for a
possible fix, correctly handling webdoc requires another recursion.
> > Actually, I value faster incremental builds that sometimes does less
> > over wasting my time always regenerating the internals manual
> > whenever I happen to touch an SCM file. Just doing
> >
> > $ rm Documentation/out*/en/internals.texi
> >
> > will update it, no need to remember any command.
>
> What about making this a Makefile target, to be mentioned in `make
> help`?
Documenting might be worth it, not sure we need a target.
Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Re: branching stable/2.22?, (continued)
- Re: branching stable/2.22?, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/09/11
- Re: branching stable/2.22?, James Lowe, 2020/09/11
- Re: branching stable/2.22?, Dan Eble, 2020/09/11
- Re: branching stable/2.22?, Werner LEMBERG, 2020/09/12
- Re: branching stable/2.22?, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/09/12
- Re: branching stable/2.22?, Werner LEMBERG, 2020/09/12
- Re: branching stable/2.22?,
Jonas Hahnfeld <=
- Re: branching stable/2.22?, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/09/13
- Re: branching stable/2.22?, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/09/13
- Re: branching stable/2.22?, Dan Eble, 2020/09/13
- Re: branching stable/2.22?, David Kastrup, 2020/09/13
- Re: branching stable/2.22?, James Lowe, 2020/09/11
- Re: branching stable/2.22?, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/09/11
- Re: branching stable/2.22?, Thomas Morley, 2020/09/06