From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,URIBL_CSS,URIBL_CSS_A shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6AF71F403 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 23:26:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="lUqUrY2Y"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230358AbiFWXZ4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:25:56 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38418 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230118AbiFWXZz (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:25:55 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 619074D9E4 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 16:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B0041401CE; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:25:53 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=lkktMbGz2WDk mqQPkT2lArJB1ytSj0jVSS/F4LBgIi4=; b=lUqUrY2YIBjbqfPOlgJke4L+2NgM kDmvlwNVrLYXmFQ5kCTVueEBuZD95lDbXGc6133WkzrKZ8ozJx8IAFWCe6PLp/Bz LrznOC+Qcgp6NTPcgyhqQxB5AEDLMOyrQ5On/IF4QO5UN+PYA9AmVwSIPYjA/ev8 I0fMHDwV7ukZbSQ= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E66D1401CC; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:25:53 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.82.80.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E10E81401C9; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 19:25:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Cc: Jeff King , SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] gitweb: fix "make" not including "gitweb" without NOOP run slowdowns References: <220527.861qwf489s.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <20220620083202.GB1689@szeder.dev> <220622.86r13hkp2c.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> <220623.865ykrll0j.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 16:25:51 -0700 In-Reply-To: <220623.865ykrll0j.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?IsOG?= =?utf-8?B?dmFyIEFybmZqw7Zyw7A=?= Bjarmason"'s message of "Thu, 23 Jun 2022 12:29:58 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D2FADA84-F34B-11EC-B924-CB998F0A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: >> We could easily add "cd .. && make gitweb" to gitweb/Makefile with >> the same "minor hassle" but that needs to be done just once, instead >> of having to be done once per packager, so I am not sure the above >> argues for a good tradeoff. > > True, but I think critically in this case we've never documented that > you should be running gitweb/Makefile directly. I.e. the gitweb/INSTALL > has always documented and assumed that you run these from the top-level= . Well, I do not think Makefiles document much of their targets in general. If its first/default target has a reasonable name, like "all", people expect "cd there && make all" would do the right thing. So I do not think "we never documented" is a good excuse. What the current users have been doing and are expecting to keep working is what counts. If they are used to see "cd gitweb && make" working, perhaps instead of giving an unfriendly $(error do not run) at the beginning of gitweb/Makefile that is designed to trigger only when they did that (instead of running 'make gitweb' from the top), it would be trivial to have the rule to "cd .. && $(MAKE) gitweb" there, no?