// 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 because it is a more conservative behavior. Yes, things sometimes get needlessly rebuilt. We recognize that, and agree it's not ideal. We are concerned that your suggested change would introduce more problems than it solves. This has all been stated repeatedly, and has nothing to do with "it's just the way it works". The closest we've come to that is asserting that there is *a reason* it is that way, and that you seem not to have taken the time to understand what it is. You've been reluctant to accept that idea. Further, while I don't think it's been stated explicitly, the idea of "just change the behavior of the out-of-date check based on an environment variable" is counter to the general Plan 9 philosophy. Again, not because "that's the way it is", but because it makes the tool less predictable and introduces a whole other class of extrnal dependency. This is something Plan 9 intentionally avoids. Anthony
