On Jul 9, 2023, at 10:39, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
>
> It definitely makes sense to keep the option to build without bytecode, since
> that is quite faster for incremental rebuilds (especially in Guile 2.2,
I think it makes sense to skip `make bytecode` when iterating on particular
tests, but I a
Le dimanche 09 juillet 2023 à 12:57 +0200, David Kastrup a écrit :
> Ugh. Looks like our test pipeline setup would warrant including testing
> about this, then.
IIRC, when "make bytecode" and "make install-bytecode" were introduced, we still
considered them a bit experimental and didn't want to
Jean Abou Samra writes:
> Le dimanche 09 juillet 2023 à 12:39 +0200, David Kastrup a écrit :
>> The build isn't broken unless you use bytecode compilation. Do we do
>> this in general?
>
>
> Depends on who is "we". I for one always build with bytecode because LilyPond
> is
> quite slow without
> For the record, there is now a patch
> at https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/2057
>
> It LGTM. What do you think of fast-tracking it, to unbreak the
> build for everyone?
+1
Werner
Le dimanche 09 juillet 2023 à 12:39 +0200, David Kastrup a écrit :
> The build isn't broken unless you use bytecode compilation. Do we do
> this in general?
Depends on who is "we". I for one always build with bytecode because LilyPond is
quite slow without it, especially the startup.
> Do we h
Jean Abou Samra writes:
> For the record, there is now a patch
> at https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/2057
>
> It LGTM. What do you think of fast-tracking it, to unbreak the build for
> everyone?
The build isn't broken unless you use bytecode compilation. Do we do
this in ge
For the record, there is now a patch
at https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/2057
It LGTM. What do you think of fast-tracking it, to unbreak the build for
everyone?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
