Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: > Folks, > > > as discussed some weeks ago, I've now pushed the reformatted > GNUmakefile to staging. There are only whitespace changes.
Is there anything wrong with our review system? If you feel there is, how about at least posting the patch for review on the list before pushing? Things like +TOPDOC_TXT_FILES = \ + $(addprefix $(top-build-dir)/Documentation/topdocs/$(outdir)/, \ + $(addsuffix .txt, \ + $(TOPDOC_FILES))) +IN_FILES := \ + $(call src-wildcard, \ + *.in) are quite beyond the scope of discussion and I don't see that they improve either readability nor reduce the potential for merge conflicts. And things like +STEPMAKE_TEMPLATES = \ + po \ + install \ + toplevel +LOCALSTEPMAKE_TEMPLATES = \ + lilypond are ugly without an additional empty line. Stuff like - $(MAKE) local-dist $(distdir) + $(MAKE) local-dist \ + $(distdir) makes little sense: why split a simple command into two lines if after the split both the first as well as the second line are special (one starts with $(MAKE) and the other does not end with \)? Absolutely no gain in readability or mergeability. And that's just from glancing over the first few lines. More important: you are changing a core part of the build system. You _intend_ this change not to contain any functional differences, but a rather thorough way to be reasonably sure that you were successful in every detail is our regtest system. Which does not just check, from a clean slate, that everything compiles, but also that the results from the regtests stay the same. The staging merge does not guarantee the same. It is, speaking in the words of chairman Percival, a safety net, not a trampoline. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
