From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64CB16DE1081 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 17:03:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.028 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.027, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id urDmdquNpdry for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 17:03:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5344F6DE0F56 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 17:03:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hIitv-0001Xl-8v; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 20:03:07 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 27102 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:03:05 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor , Notmuch Mail Subject: Re: subsequent rebuilds of notmuch always re-build sphinx and ruby In-Reply-To: <87h8apvda4.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> References: <87r29wwgq2.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87a7gkdxns.fsf@tethera.net> <87d0lgvylb.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87mukjcg3l.fsf@tethera.net> <87h8apvda4.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 21:03:05 -0300 Message-ID: <875zr5d1vq.fsf@tethera.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:03:12 -0000 Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > On Sun 2019-04-21 16:29:02 -0300, David Bremner wrote: >> the html rebuild is much faster than the texinfo + info rebuilds. > > agreed, in the runs that i've been doing as well. I was concerned that > the html rebuild itself may have been *triggering* the rebuild of the > texinfo stuff, though. Sounds like you don't think that's the case. > >> I've posted some patches for the sphinx-doc issues a couple of hours ago >> (id:20190421171245.19729-1-david@tethera.net). > > thanks! your own commentary on that series seems to acknowledge that > there are problems with it (though i don't understand the tradeoffs > well). There was a problem with the first patch, which I replaced with two more. > Is there no way to give make itself full visibility into the specific > generated files so it can do its comparisons directly? I'm obviously > not asking you to rewrite the entire native sphinx build system, i'm > just observing that at present it seems suboptimal, though i don't know > how to fix it either :/ I'm open to ideas, but keep in mind we want to support parallel make, which means we have to be careful not to trigger multiple invocations of sphinx-build in parallel.