Re: A more radical cleanup for make bootstrap?

[Michael Welsh Duggan]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,  larsi@gnus.org,
>>   monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,  stefan@marxist.se,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 16:20:06 +0800
>> 
>> Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org> writes:
>> 
>> > I don't know exactly.  Stefan M and Po Lu both asked for a "less
>> > radical" bootstrap, which is what that "soft-bootstrap" would have
>> > done.  But now Stefan said it's not that important to him.  So I guess
>> > there's no need for a "soft-bootstrap" anymore, unless someone tells
>> > otherwise.
>> 
>> What about me?
>> 
>> It generally takes 10-15 minutes for me to build Emacs in ideal
>> conditions from "make bootstrap", with much of that time taken up by
>> building temacs.  It takes longer when I am actually working on Emacs,
>> because that typically happens while my machine is already under load.
>
> Why do you bootstrap?
>
> I almost never do that.

Personally, I almost always bootstrap.  As I am not actively doing Emacs
development, I am building once every few weeks in order to pick up new
features and bug fixes from the master branch.  There have been many
instances in the past where not bootstrapping causes strange errors when
running Emacs.  It doesn't happen frequently, but it does happen.  It is
worth an extra five minutes (?) or so to me to bootstrap always so I
don't have to deal with noticing that something isn't working correctly,
trying to track down the failure, and then later find out from reading
this list or by checking bug reports that bootstrapping fixes the issue.

-- 
Michael Welsh Duggan
(md5i@md5i.com)