On 06/22/2020 10:54 AM, Björn Persson wrote: > Tom Stellard wrote: >> On 06/22/2020 10:00 AM, Björn Persson wrote: >>> Tom Stellard wrote: >>>> The reason I put in the proposal that all make invocations would be >>>> updated, >>>> is because this is easier to script and it would be hard for someone who >>>> doesn't know the package to make the call about which invocations don't >>>> need to use parallel make. >>> >>> It's often tempting to do the easy thing instead of the right thing. >> >> What do you think would be the right thing to do in this case? > > To study each make invocation, determine whether it's parallelizable > and judge whether future build flags will be appropriate – which is > obviously much more work for the person pushing the change, but avoids > making work for package maintainers. >
I think that even if the change owner does the analysis themselves, the package maintainer is still going to want to review the changes. So, I don't know if doing it this way would actually save maintainers work. -Tom > Björn Persson > > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
