|
From: | John W. Eaton |
Subject: | Re: So much technical debt, so little time |
Date: | Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:04:38 -0500 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.7.0 |
On 01/15/2016 03:37 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
On 01/15/2016 03:12 PM, Rik wrote:1/15/16 jwe, The 4.2 release will be significantly better for hacking on given all the clean up of the code that has occurred. Until then, more niggling issues. I notice that the build system is producing .dirstamp, .octave-dirstamp, and XXX.stamp files. Is there a reason for all this diversity? What caught my attention was "test/bc-overload-tests.stamp" and "scripts/java/images.stamp". Both of these files are visible because they are not preceded by a leading '.'. Since they are really internal build files, can they be hidden?OK, I'll look at making these more uniform.
I left the .oct-dirstamp name alone since I used it to distinguish directory stamps that we manage manually from the ones managed automatically by Automake.
For the stamp files used for regular files, I opted for .NAME-stamp. I don't know if it is still an issue, but I did that to avoid possible problems with filesystems that might not allow files with multiple extensions.
jwe
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |