[Fwd:[ksh93-integration-discuss]ksh93-integrationpre-reviewround"two"(webrev2007-05-14)]

[Peter Memishian]

 > > Seems like we could save the nightly
 > > for after I have a chance to finish my review of the other Makefiles,
 > > since you'll have to do another one after that anyway.
 > 
 > Uhm... I strongly disagree in this case... I belive that it's better to
 > make sure that the tree (even this prototype tree) builds all the time
 > after doing commits with no exception. Otherwise other people like April
 > who use the tree can't continue their work until I have cleaned-up the
 > mess I caused...

Indeed, I'd never do a commit without doing a build -- my suggestion
implied deferring the commit until all of my feedback has been handled.

 > > Anyway, my preference is for (2), but I'm willing to agree to (1) if
 > > you're really sold on what you have
 > 
 > (Offtopic: English question: "sold on" == "belive in", right ?)

Yep.

 > Techinically I think it is a better solution than cramping everything
 > into one flat dir. In theory we could even save the mkpicdir rule by
 > letting the compiler rule itself create the subdir on demand (the
 > original prototype code had a custom rule which did exactly that (based
 > on the assuming that "mkdir" and "dirname" are shell builtins and
 > therefore won't cause trouble for the build time (and mkdir(2) is an
 > atomic filesystem operation and following accesses are (likely) cached
 > by the DNLC))) ...
 > ... but I can understand your concern... without "precedent" in OS/Net
 > for such a thing my own position is pretty much weak and listing other
 > projects like Mozilla.org as precedent will likely not work, right ?

Well, it's valuable, but it doesn't address the core concern that we've
created something that's different from established practice without a
really good reason -- and "cramped" object file directories seem like a
low-priority issue (if an issue at all).

Anyway, this is a minor complaint and I don't want to blow it out of
proportion, so I'm going to leave this one up to you -- though of course I
hope you choose consistency :-)

-- 
meem