Robert Haas escribió:
> Given that the anum.h stuff is gone, "vastly" might be an
> overstatement. I'm pretty surprised to find out that people don't
> like the idea of having dependencies be correct from anywhere in the
> tree. Even if I'm the only developer who does partial builds, the
> cost seems to me to be next to nil, so I'm not quite sure what anyone
> gets out of rejecting this patch.
I actually kinda like this patch. I tend to do partial builds
frequently.
> That having been said, it's not
> really worth it to me to spend a lot of time arguing about it. So
> far, the only coherent argument why this is bad is that it moves some
> logic into a shared Makefile rather than a directory-specific
> Makefile, which might be confusing to someone trying to maintain the
> Makefiles. I don't really buy that because they're already complex
> enough that you have to read them all to understand what they are
> doing, and nothing in this quite small patch is going to change that
> picture very much, but I guess that's just me.
The action-at-a-distance rules in the shared makefile is a pain, but I
think I'd live with it -- just make sure it is properly documented in
both places.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
