On 7/1/21 3:39 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 01.07.21 16:47, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> On 6/2/21 4:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>>>> I'm inclined to agree with Alvaro that the messages are at best an
>>>> oddity. Standard Unix practice is to be silent on success.
>>> We've been steadily moving towards less chatter during builds.
>>> I'd be good with dropping these messages in HEAD, but doing so
>>> in the back branches might be inadvisable.
>
>> OK, I think on reflection new targets will be cleaner. What I suggest is
>> the attached, applied to all branches, followed by removal of the four
>> noise messages in just HEAD.
>
> This naming approach is a bit problematic. For example, we have
> "install-bin" in src/backend/, which is specifically for only
> installing binaries, not data files etc. (hence the name). Your
> proposal would confuse this scheme.
>
> I think we should also take a step back here and consider: We had
> "all", which wasn't "all" enough, then we had "world", now we have
> "world-minus-a-bit", but it's still more than "all". It's like we are
> trying to prove the continuum hypothesis here.
>
> I think we had consensus on the make variable approach, so I'm
> confused why a different solution was committed and backpatched
> without discussion.
In fact the names and approach were suggested in my email of June 21st.
The make variable approach just felt klunky in the end.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
