Re: Towards a cleaner build

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Noam Postavsky <address@hidden> writes:

>> But...  perhaps we could tweak `byte-compile-warnings' featurewise, too?
>
> But maybe do that in a separate step (i.e., after
> with-suppressed-warnings lands on master).

Makes sense.  Or...  perhaps we'd only want to allow the new symbols in
`with-suppressed-warnings' while we allow the legacy symbols in
`byte-compile-warnings'?  Then it'd make sense to do both at the same
time...

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no