Graham Percival writes: > You mean, like > 23cdda9506931d5b9a1e75ee8be8b74f9084a7c0 > ?
Yes (I would have called the option --log). > I'd call it 20% rather than 90%, but yes, Phil's work on > lilypond-book will certainly be valuable! Assuming that --redirect-lilypond-output is used during build now, you mention 500,000 and 370,000 lines of output for make doc. Am I assuming correctly that currently make doc prints 130,000 lines? Which programs are responsible for that? >> I can imagine also adding stepmake rules to handle V=0 for >> c/c++ compilation. Possibly not logging that would be OK, >> because a new compile with V=1 would almost instantly show >> the problem? > > I don't agree. Log files are cheap; I think we should always > write the logfiles I don't get this. Any sort of complexity added is expensive. It must be written, it must be documented, it must be remembered, it must be maintained. One of the biggest responsibilities as a maintainer is to deny most if not all `nice to have' features in favour of simplicity and more important things. Moreover, I figure that c/c++ compilation amounts to only a maximum of about 0% to the sea of output burden. What are you trying to fix? Also, you are [should be] probably running c/c++ compilation in -j4 mode; how are you going to find/determine which compile failed and what log file it is? Then, you have to open the log file and tell your editor to go to the right location. Isn't it smarter to hit compile [bound to make V=[ [-j1]] in your editor and have it jump to the error location? Jan -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.nl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
