Return-Path: <cworth@cworth.org>
X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68558431FBC;
	Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:17:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id WXMaaFhTwlin; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:17:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68824431FAE;
	Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:17:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
To: Mikhail Gusarov <dottedmag@dottedmag.net>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
In-Reply-To: <1258723107-14704-1-git-send-email-dottedmag@dottedmag.net>
References: <1258723107-14704-1-git-send-email-dottedmag@dottedmag.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:16:52 +0100
Message-ID: <87hbso3tmj.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: [notmuch] [PATCH] RFC: quiet make
X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
	<notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:17:05 -0000

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:18:27 +0600, Mikhail Gusarov <dottedmag@dottedmag.net> wrote:
> I don't entirely like duplicating every command line in makefile,
> so this patch is RFC. Someone with bigger Make-fu than mine probably
> knows a better way.

Hi Mikhail,

Getting a quieter compile out is a great idea.

But, you're right that duplicating the command line invocations is a
problem. That sets up a fragile system where we'll end up with "make"
and "make V=1" actually doing different things.

Meanwhile, the feature I've always wanted with systems like this is to
document to the user that there's the possibility of adding a "V=1" to
the command line to get the full output.

Fortunately, I'm sitting next to Chris Wilson right now, and I know that
all I need to do is to mention the idea to him, and he'll give us a
solution that doesn't duplicate the commands, documents V=1, and will
just be a tiny change to our Makefiles.

-Carl