I agree that we should consider a compromise regarding the UI/UX of auto
clobber. I have filed bug 863091.
I would like to say that I view the object directory as a cache of the
output of the build system. Since it's a cache, cache rules apply and
data may disappear at any time. This analogy works well for my developer
workflow - I never put anything not derived from the build system in my
object directory. But, I don't know what other people are doing. Could
the anti-auto-clobberers please explain where this analogy falls apart
for your workflow?
On 4/17/13 3:36 PM, Justin Lebar wrote:
I think the possibility of deleting user data should be taken
seriously. Exactly who is doing the deletion (configure vs. make) is
immaterial. It's also not right to argue that since a majority of
users don't expect to lose data, it's OK to silently delete data for a
minority of them.
I think we should either opt in to auto-clobbering or prompt to
clobber by default and allow users to opt out of the prompt.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Ralph Giles <gi...@mozilla.com> wrote:
On 13-04-17 12:36 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
It /could/, sure. However, I consider auto clobbering a core build
system feature (sheriffs were very vocal about wanting it). As such, it
needs to be part of client.mk. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)
Ok. A makefile deleting things is less surprising that an a configure
script doing so.
-r
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
