Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On Thursday 19 of December 2013 14:09:05 a...@9srv.net wrote: > > There is a reason (or set of reasons) we're using Plan 9, as > opposed to doing everything on Linux or whatnot. The > system is designed with a different set of principles in mind. as a resident contrarian, let me say: there is a

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

The "problem" discussed here is caused by low-resolution timestamps. The solution is to to increase the resolution of the timestamps, not to add hacks to the mk tool. Adding hacks and special casings inside tools is one of the main reasons why Unix is so clumsy and hard to use. Look at how networki

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

> Having been envolved with projects that take 4 hours to build Don't worry, that will never happen in Plan 9. One of the more delightful consequences of putting simplicity first.

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote: > > I see your point but would argue (in the most > > friendly way) that the case you point out would be extremely rare, while > > the reverse case is very common. > > "Correctness" (in the context of software engineering)

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

Quoting erik quanstrom : > I would be much more interested in producing and providing patches if I > wasn't in such fear of upsetting the Plan-9 philosophy. (That is if > improvements were sufficient.) Your total lack of effort in understanding Plan 9 philosophy deftly removes any interest I m

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

> > I would be much more interested in producing and providing patches if I > > wasn't in such fear of upsetting the Plan-9 philosophy. (That is if > > improvements were sufficient.) > > Your total lack of effort in understanding Plan 9 philosophy deftly > removes any interest I may have had in y

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

> I see your point but would argue (in the most > friendly way) that the case you point out would be extremely rare, while > the reverse case is very common. "Correctness" (in the context of software engineering) doesn't mean doing the right thing in all but the rarest cases; it means doing the ri

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

Quoting Blake McBride : Agreed. You also don't owe your grocer, your tailor, or your gas station attendant anything either. There is personal gain we all get by shared contribution. I've selected grocers, tailors, and gas station attendants based on technical merit. How am I to value your i

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote: > Quoting Blake McBride : > > There is a difference between valid arguments and club allegiance. >> > > You have not demonstrated a necessity for anyone subscribed to this > list to give a particular shit about which of the two are at play her

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

off topic - for your own amusement, you can search in the mail list archives (http://9fans.net/archive/)  DP9IK and SP9SSS gabi On Thursday, December 19, 2013 8:30 PM, Blake McBride wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: > What I am beginning to understand from comm

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

// I have provided examples of why the way it works is a problem. // Members of "club Plan-9" insist that that is just the way it works, as // opposed to here is a counterexample why the way it works is better. No, we don't. You keep hearing that, but nobody's saying it. mk does what it does bec

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Rudolf Sykora wrote: > Hello, > > On 19 December 2013 20:22, Blake McBride wrote: > > Agreed. I enjoy reasoned debate. I don't enjoy being told the reason is > > because "that's the way we do it". That is not reasoned debate. It is > club > > support. > > I be

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: > > What I am beginning to understand from comments like this is that there > is > > a "club Plan-9". Everything ever done by the originators of "club > Plan-9" > > is correct, period. No mater what exceptions, special cases, or good > new >

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

Hello, On 19 December 2013 20:22, Blake McBride wrote: > Agreed. I enjoy reasoned debate. I don't enjoy being told the reason is > because "that's the way we do it". That is not reasoned debate. It is club > support. I believe, from reading this mailing list for some time, you must be ready

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

> Just a newbie's (with 35 years experience) perception. It sounds like you're saying that you came on the scene around the time UNIX diverged from sanity and devolved into madness. sl

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

Quoting Blake McBride : There is a difference between valid arguments and club allegiance. You have not demonstrated a necessity for anyone subscribed to this list to give a particular shit about which of the two are at play here. We don't owe you anything, including a defense of plan 9. Pat

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Skip Tavakkolian < skip.tavakkol...@gmail.com> wrote: > You can change anything you want on your system; but don't try to ram it > down others' throats unless you can prove that you're approach is (a) > correct (b) meets the collective sense elegance. Reasoned dis

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote: > Quoting Blake McBride : > > What I am beginning to understand from comments like this is that there is >> a "club Plan-9". Everything ever done by the originators of "club >> Plan-9" >> is correct, period. No mater what exceptions, special

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

You can change anything you want on your system; but don't try to ram it down others' throats unless you can prove that you're approach is (a) correct (b) meets the collective sense elegance. Reasoned disagreement is not an attack. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Blake McBride wrote: > > On

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

> What I am beginning to understand from comments like this is that there is > a "club Plan-9". Everything ever done by the originators of "club Plan-9" > is correct, period. No mater what exceptions, special cases, or good new > ideas occur, they are wrong and we will find some way of rationaliz

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

// What I am beginning to understand from comments like // this is that there is a "club Plan-9". Everything ever done // by the originators of "club Plan-9" is correct, period. No // mater what exceptions, special cases, or good new ideas // occur, they are wrong and we will find some way of //

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

You should learn the system before wanting to make changes to it. You're wanting to change how zen is practiced without knowing much zen.

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

Quoting Blake McBride : What I am beginning to understand from comments like this is that there is a "club Plan-9". Everything ever done by the originators of "club Plan-9" is correct, period. No mater what exceptions, special cases, or good new ideas occur, they are wrong and we will find som

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

Quoting Blake McBride : What I am beginning to understand from comments like this is that there is a "club Plan-9". Everything ever done by the originators of "club Plan-9" is correct, period. No mater what exceptions, special cases, or good new ideas occur, they are wrong and we will find som

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:07 AM, wrote: > // If you are working on a project, edit some files, and then > // perform a mk, if files you haven't changed get built, I for > // one would constantly question myself, about whether or > // not I changed that file. It would make things confusing. > >

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Tristan <9p...@imu.li> wrote: > > > how long does it take you to run mk, and then realise you didn't Put > your > > > last set of changes? > > > > i once changed mk on my local machine to act as you suggest, and then > > > took far too long trying to figure out wh

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

Blake McBride wrote: |On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:55 AM, erik quanstrom wrote: | |>> I was thinking about the problem and actually, at least in all |>> circumstances I can think of, changing that one operation from <= to < |>> would fix the problem. If the times are on the same second, I would

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

> > how long does it take you to run mk, and then realise you didn't Put your > > last set of changes? > > i once changed mk on my local machine to act as you suggest, and then > > took far too long trying to figure out why the program's behavior didn't > > reflect the code. more time than i saved

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

// If you are working on a project, edit some files, and then // perform a mk, if files you haven't changed get built, I for // one would constantly question myself, about whether or // not I changed that file. It would make things confusing. It's confusing because it doesn't match your expectati

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

Yea, got that. I just thought it made sense for a wider audience. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Jacob Todd wrote: > No one is stopping you from changing it in your installation. > On Dec 19, 2013 11:38 AM, "Blake McBride" wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Tristan <9p...@imu.li

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

No one is stopping you from changing it in your installation. On Dec 19, 2013 11:38 AM, "Blake McBride" wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Tristan <9p...@imu.li> wrote: > >> > I for one favor practical usefulness over theoretical correctness. An >> > environment variable option would tri

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Tristan <9p...@imu.li> wrote: > > I for one favor practical usefulness over theoretical correctness. An > > environment variable option would trivially satisfy both groups. It > could > > operate as-is so nothing pre-existing would be affected. > > how long does

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

> I for one favor practical usefulness over theoretical correctness. An > environment variable option would trivially satisfy both groups. It could > operate as-is so nothing pre-existing would be affected. how long does it take you to run mk, and then realise you didn't Put your last set of chan

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:55 AM, erik quanstrom wrote: > > I was thinking about the problem and actually, at least in all > > circumstances I can think of, changing that one operation from <= to < > > would fix the problem. If the times are on the same second, I would > never > > have had time to

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On Thu Dec 19 05:02:50 EST 2013, 9f...@hamnavoe.com wrote: > > So, I think you are saying, that for pieces in a mkfile that take less than > > 1s to build it is possible for them to be build again, unnecessarily, when > > mk is run again. This is normal and just the way it is. Is that correct? >

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

> On 12/19/2013 11:59 AM, Charles Forsyth wrote: > > > > On 19 December 2013 06:07, Bakul Shah > > wrote: > > > > I suppose making atime, mtime of type struct timespec would > > break too much including 9p? > > > > > > It's unfortunate that the times in the prot

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

> I was thinking about the problem and actually, at least in all > circumstances I can think of, changing that one operation from <= to < > would fix the problem. If the times are on the same second, I would never > have had time to change it. This would fix the problem. Perhaps this > functiona

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:40 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: > > > to be more explicit. if a is built from b and mtime(a) <= mtime(b), then > mk could fail to rebuild a when it needs to. for correctness, mk must > use <= > not <. > I was thinking about the problem and actually, at least in all circum

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On 12/19/2013 11:59 AM, Charles Forsyth wrote: > > On 19 December 2013 06:07, Bakul Shah > wrote: > > I suppose making atime, mtime of type struct timespec would > break too much including 9p? > > > It's unfortunate that the times in the protocol have low resolu

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On 19 December 2013 06:07, Bakul Shah wrote: > I suppose making atime, mtime of type struct timespec would > break too much including 9p? > It's unfortunate that the times in the protocol have low resolution. I think ix does better.

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

> So, I think you are saying, that for pieces in a mkfile that take less than > 1s to build it is possible for them to be build again, unnecessarily, when > mk is run again. This is normal and just the way it is. Is that correct? Correct except for "just the way it is". There is a principle inv

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 00:40:52 EST erik quanstrom wrote: > if the point is to > make mk precise, that goal can be accomplished with a little effort. I suppose making atime, mtime of type struct timespec would break too much including 9p?

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

> In part to substitute issues with time with issues with checksums, I am > writing a build tool for Inferno loosely inspired by djb's redo. I think > it deals nicely with some of the problems of make/mk tools: it handles > multiple outputs, treats shell variables as /env files for dependencies, >

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

> So, I think you are saying, that for pieces in a mkfile that take less than > 1s to build it is possible for them to be build again, unnecessarily, when > mk is run again. This is normal and just the way it is. Is that correct? to be more explicit. if a is built from b and mtime(a) <= mtime(b

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

In part to substitute issues with time with issues with checksums, I am writing a build tool for Inferno loosely inspired by djb's redo. I think it deals nicely with some of the problems of make/mk tools: it handles multiple outputs, treats shell variables as /env files for dependencies, and uses

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: > > I think this is caused because the time slice is too short and the system > > can't tell the build times apart. Even though main clearly came after > main.8 > > the system sees them as the same time. Of course this can cause mk to > > do

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

Thanks for the encouragement. I'll move into other areas soon. I'll try to do as much research as possible before posting. On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Matthew Veety wrote: > > > > On Dec 18, 2013, at 17:01, Blake McBride wrote: > > > > I apologize for beating the heck out of the group.

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

> I think this is caused because the time slice is too short and the system > can't tell the build times apart. Even though main clearly came after main.8 > the system sees them as the same time. Of course this can cause mk to > dothe link again unnecessarily if > mk is called again. This is wha

Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

> On Dec 18, 2013, at 17:01, Blake McBride wrote: > > I apologize for beating the heck out of the group. I admit that some of my > questions are premature. I appreciate everyones help. > Don't worry about asking questions ever, man. It's good to see, seeing people willing to ask questions

[9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

Greetings, I apologize for beating the heck out of the group. I admit that some of my questions are premature. I appreciate everyones help. I have a better handle on what is going on, and with that knowledge, I was able to restructure the mkfile to work correctly in parallel. I am encountering