On 7/1/21 3:39 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 01.07.21 16:47, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> On 6/2/21 4:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >>>> I'm inclined to agree with Alvaro that the messages are at best an >>>> oddity. Standard Unix practice is to be silent on success. >>> We've been steadily moving towards less chatter during builds. >>> I'd be good with dropping these messages in HEAD, but doing so >>> in the back branches might be inadvisable. > >> OK, I think on reflection new targets will be cleaner. What I suggest is >> the attached, applied to all branches, followed by removal of the four >> noise messages in just HEAD. > > This naming approach is a bit problematic. For example, we have > "install-bin" in src/backend/, which is specifically for only > installing binaries, not data files etc. (hence the name). Your > proposal would confuse this scheme. > > I think we should also take a step back here and consider: We had > "all", which wasn't "all" enough, then we had "world", now we have > "world-minus-a-bit", but it's still more than "all". It's like we are > trying to prove the continuum hypothesis here. > > I think we had consensus on the make variable approach, so I'm > confused why a different solution was committed and backpatched > without discussion.
In fact the names and approach were suggested in my email of June 21st. The make variable approach just felt klunky in the end. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
