| From: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |
| Date: | 2009-06-03 00:31:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20090603003115.GJ23972@yugib.highrise.ca |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [090602 20:18]:
> Yeah, I thought about building out of tree, with a different build tree
> for each branch and VPATH pointing at the common source tree (working
> copy). That would probably work if it weren't that switching to branch
> B and then back to branch A has to advance the filesystem timestamps on
> every file that's different between the two branches. So it would
> defeat whatever intelligence "make" might have. Even if ccache is not
> fooled, that's only a very partial solution.
Yes, the linux kernel relies on the build system (for them its the
kbulid makefile setup) having complete knowledge of all dependencies.
So if you switch branches, "make" knows exactly what files *need* to be
rebuilt, based on complete dependencies (including config) and which
ones don't.
a.
--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-06-03 00:31:49 | Re: Managing multiple branches in git |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-06-03 00:26:23 | Re: It's June 1; do you know where your release is? |