News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Mk: A Successor to Make [pdf] by nmz on Sunday July 16, 2023 @01:17PM (#36749336)
Woah, what was that about erasing files and use a vcs just in case? yeah no thanks, I build first (test) and then commit, not the other way around.
Re:Mk: A Successor to Make [pdf] by vimax on Sunday July 16, 2023 @03:12PM (#36750447)
I agree with you about that statement, but why don’t you commit to an unstable branch? Why risk losing something or pass up having a better development history?
Re:Mk: A Successor to Make [pdf] by nemetroid on Sunday July 16, 2023 @04:10PM (#36750955)
The way the warning is worded suggests that any invocation of tup has a risk of deleting your files, implying that to be entirely safe you should commit before every single build, which would be ludicrous.
Re:Mk: A Successor to Make [pdf] by rollcat on Sunday July 16, 2023 @07:26PM (#36752439)
git commit --amend, rebase with squash/fixup, etc. I easily make a dozen commits per hour, it's like undo on steroids and you can always clean it up later.
Re:Mk: A Successor to Make [pdf] by nmz on Sunday July 16, 2023 @04:43PM (#36751217)
Because I like having an unstable branch that still builds. not an unstable branch that doesn't build and is full of tryouts and just unhelpful commits on the log.