[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bug #33138] .PARLLELSYNC enhancement with patch

From: Paul Smith
Subject: Re: [bug #33138] .PARLLELSYNC enhancement with patch
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 01:34:44 -0400

On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 22:36 +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
> > > This is useful (to me) because at any time, I know what's running.
> > > ("[Start]" messages minus "[End]" messages.)
> > 
> > Thanks, this is the reason I was looking for; that use-case wasn't clear
> > to me based on the previous email.
> OK, so what are we going to do about it? Leave, revert, new option?

I've pushed a change to add a new argument to the -O/--output-sync
option, "job", to write output after each line of the recipe.  Please
give it a try and make sure it works for your situation.  It worked OK
in my more limited testing.

I'm not excited about that term ("job"); it's kind of accurate, but in
the documentation for example we're really mushy about exactly what a
"job" is, vs. a "recipe" or a "command line" etc.  I'd like to pick some
terms for this, define them in a solid way, then clean up the
references.  It would be best to do this before the release to avoid
changing things later.

For example, we currently use "target" as the name; maybe "recipe" is

If anyone has opinions I'm listening.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]