On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 8:12 AM Paul Smith wrote:
> The question we have think carefully about is what sort of backward-
> compatibility issues, if any, we could introduce. Are there situations
> where people are relying on the current behavior?
It is possible that someone relies that running 'm
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 4:12 AM Paul Smith wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2025-03-15 at 08:28 -0400, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 8:12 AM Paul Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2025-03-08 at 11:34 -0900, Britton Kerin wrote:
> > > > What confuses me is that since the explicitly requeste
Thank you Paul, that helped me, and at first glance see no disruption to my
past applications (which, FWIW, largely consists of the ill-advised but still
useful pattern of auto-creating directories to hold targets).
~ malcolm_c...@stowers.org
From: Paul Smith
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 9:23 A
The patch attached to the savannah issue Dmitry provided below does
include a doc change. I haven't reviewed it yet.
Basically the current behavior is:
To build target A:
- First try to build all prerequisites
- Compare the modification time of all NON-ORDER-ONLY prerequisites
- If any NON-ORDER
Hi, as someone who uses order only prerequisites frequently, I would appreciate
at restatement of what the proposed change to behavior is so I can advise
whether I expect my use cases to be affected.
Perhaps in addition to a code patch a proposed documentation patch could help
other lurkers ge
On Sat, 2025-03-15 at 08:28 -0400, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 8:12 AM Paul Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2025-03-08 at 11:34 -0900, Britton Kerin wrote:
> > > What confuses me is that since the explicitly requested foo
> > > exists and isn't out of date with respect to any n
