From: A Large Angry SCM <gitzilla@gmail.com>
To: "Kirby C. Bohling" <kbohling@birddog.com>
Cc: Ryan Anderson <ryan@michonline.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] "Recursive Make considered harmful"
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:32:12 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42E7A8FC.3080904@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050727143720.GG7410@birddog.com>
Kirby C. Bohling wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 10:25:10AM -0400, A Large Angry SCM wrote:
>>Ryan Anderson wrote:
>>>Convert build process from recurse Make to a single Make
>>>
>>Please explain the rational for this.
>
> I'm new to the list, but given the subject, I'm fairly confident
> it's this.
>
> http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~millerp/rmch/recu-make-cons-harm.html
>
...
>
> He used the exact wording just about everyone dones when referring
> to it conceptually. It's easy to google for support and rebuttal:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Recursive+Make+considered+harmful&btnG=Google+Search
Thanks for the references.
A quick read of the paper and some of the rebuttals make me think that
either way (recursive/non-recursive):
* require about the same amount of makefile/dependency maintenance work
from developers.
* allow developers to be lazy in different ways with
makefiles/dependencies.
* achieves the same end.
The non-recursive make method may have a small advantage for developers
using Git for their SCM because the Git operations are also performed at
the top level due to Git's design.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-27 15:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-27 8:39 [PATCH/RFC] "Recursive Make considered harmful" Ryan Anderson
2005-07-27 14:25 ` A Large Angry SCM
2005-07-27 14:37 ` Kirby C. Bohling
2005-07-27 15:32 ` A Large Angry SCM [this message]
2005-07-27 21:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2005-07-27 22:07 ` A Large Angry SCM
2005-07-28 7:51 ` Petr Baudis
2005-07-28 9:40 ` Matthias Urlichs
2005-07-28 7:04 ` Junio C Hamano
2005-07-28 7:45 ` Matthias Urlichs
2005-07-28 16:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2005-07-28 17:09 ` A Large Angry SCM
2005-07-29 6:53 ` Ryan Anderson
2005-07-29 7:31 ` Sam Ravnborg
2005-07-29 7:46 ` Petr Baudis
2005-07-29 9:12 ` Timo Hirvonen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=42E7A8FC.3080904@gmail.com \
--to=gitzilla@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kbohling@birddog.com \
--cc=ryan@michonline.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.