On Wed, 28 Dec 2011, DRC wrote:
If we start getting into such esoteric stuff as having separate launcher
scripts, then why wouldn't I just create a completely different build
procedure that gives me all the defaults I want?
I don't understand why you think a two-line script is esoteric. The
On Dec 28, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Peter Åstrand wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011, DRC wrote:
>
>
> I'm pretty sure the message from Pierre was that it's not important enough to
> block a new release; not that "we have a solution that fits both use cases
> optimally".
>
> We might solve the -DeferUpd
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011, DRC wrote:
interest in this. Anything that, say, increases the CPU, even so
little, is a no-no. Given these priorities, it seems difficult to find
a solution that fits both use cases by default.
Not difficult at all. We have a solution that fits both use cases by
default
