Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 09:01:13PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <20041112195030.GA63153_at_ns1.xcllnt.net>, Marcel Moolenaar writes:
> >On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 08:57:21PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >> 
> >> I now feel like everything that should have been said
> >> was said, and this thread should die.  ;)
> >
> >Not quite. It hasn't been said that phk_at_ is obstinate, disrespectful
> >and arrogant. For someone who's advocating mechanisms over policies
> >he's also been trying very hard to shove his policies down your
> >throat. This also makes him promiscuous (in a non-sexual manner).
> 
> Uhm, it's actually me who is trying to prevent Ruslan for enforcing
> his policies on the "make universe" target...

He likes a feature so he can control his make universe in a certain
way. He isn't forcing his policy upon anybody, just a way for him to
do it his way for himself. Now, if his way was totally bogus then I
see grounds for unilaterally denying his request. This I don't see.
A mechanism to allow a submake to become the first in a new set is
an elementary feature that allows us to implement the old behaviour,
good or bad, and if nothing else is just a simple way to cover our
asses. Since the implementation would not complicate matters to the
extend that maintenance becomes impossible, I see no justification
for the way the thread evolved. The default behaviour, what you've
implemented, is the perfect behaviour to minimize wall-clock time
and maximize resource utilization, constrained by the -j setting, but
it's not the only way you can allocate resources and spawn jobs. This
is where it becomes a policy issue and denying sub-optimal scheduling
is therefore a policy decision as well.

-- 
 Marcel Moolenaar	  USPA: A-39004		 marcel_at_xcllnt.net