cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Larson <...@keow.org>
Subject Re: excluding unstable blocks by default
Date Fri, 02 Apr 2004 18:32:43 GMT
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 12:03:05PM -0600, Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
> Tim Larson <tim@keow.org> asks:
> > On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 11:45:56AM -0600, Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
> > > Tim Larson <tim@keow.org> writes:
> > > > We could make it more like a debian APT source list, eg:
> > > >   build core
> > > >   build stable
> > > >   build unstable
> > > >   build deprecated
> > > >   build core stable deprecated
> > > >   build stable unstable
> > > >   build core stable custom=some-file
> > > > Just list the parts you want to build at the moment.
> > > 
> > > Aren't you always going to need the core?  Don't think you 
> > should even 
> > > have to specify it at all (it would always be included)...
> > 
> > You always need it, but you do not need to build it every 
> > time. For example, after a "cvs co -d" I do a full build of 
> > cocoon, but for each build after that I use local.* files to 
> > cause only cforms to be rebuilt, thus preventing ant from 
> > having to evaluate the other parts of Cocoon only to find out 
> > what I already knew, they did not need to be rebuilt. Does 
> > this make more sense now?
> 
> No :-)  Let computers do what computers are good at: figuring out
> whether something needs to be rebuilt is pretty much what Ant is
> designed to do.  No need to give humans the opportunity to screw it up
> as far as I can see...

Ah, you have one of those "fast" computers where you do not notice
the overhead. On mine this build pattern shortens the edit-build-test
cycle considerably so I can concentrate on the edit and test parts.

--Tim Larson

Mime
View raw message