[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: verbosity

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: verbosity
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:16:18 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

* Jason Kraftcheck wrote on Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 07:10:19PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> > <>
> I don't understand why this is such a controversial issue.

- you must not have had to deal with files several megabytes
  in size,
- maybe you haven't had to deal much with bad user bug reports that
  provide far too little information to be valuable.

I don't know how many times I've been wanting to stand in front of bug
reporters and literally slap them with
until it comes out of their nose, after the second mail of mine only
asking for more details.

But then again, most if not all developers I know have an editor that
does near-perfect postprocessing of compiler warning/error messages.
Heck, where missing, I've even sent patches to the Vim maintainer.

(Yes, some of this reasoning is about this controversy in general, not
applicable in the above case; but it's not me you should convince about
Tommy's patch.)

> Just have
> automake prefix all commands in rules that are not already prefixed with @
> or - with $(PREFIX) (or some other variable.)  Have default for PREFIX be
> empty so the current behavior is unchanged.  If someone wants to change
> the output, they can redefine it with something like PREFIX="@echo
> 'building $@ ...'; ".  Minimal makefile 'bloat', no change to the default
> behavior, and the flexibility for the output to be whatever is desired.

I think the patch Tommy suggested was pretty similar to this
description, but it did not address the concerns raised.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]