svn commit: r392209 - in head/devel: . p5-Minilla

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 05:20:44PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 03:17:30PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > Fair enough; [...] lets make it easier for new folks to get a hold of
> > things, no problem.
> > 
> > But forbidding a 100% perfectly valid, supported, and documented syntax
> > used in good will and intention by an experienced developer is IMO wrong.
> 
> Given the number of times I had fixed side effect of this I bet I'm would
> like to know how many people really knows how make(1) works :) in particular
> in that area.

When sat@ was actively doing his peer reviews, he would've always point it
out to folks that misused lazy vs. immediate expansion.  Too bad he's no
longer active; I think that rather than trying to avoid sharp corners of our
make(1), or any tool FWIW, we should be doing continuous education work akin
to what he did...

> With the new way of validating dependencies (where the pattern is now also
> checked after the dependency is installed, people would now quickly noticed
> but before this recent change it was most of the time silent. poudriere was
> the only tool able to notice that).

This actually brings us to another rule which makes more sense to become a
"hard" one: DO NOT commit ports work without poudriere/tinderbox test run.

./danfe