Re: master e54b94c28cd: Use @xref more consistently; "See @ref" -> "@xref"

[Michael Albinus]

Pip Cet via "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
writes:

Hi,


> I think if we add a new make target with the idea that you run it prior
> to a push, we can then decide what precisely would be good for it to do
> without having to rescind or amend our previously-issued advice.
>
> My suggestion is "make push", which would not run "git push" but should
> probably include instructions to do that, if and only if the checks
> succeeded.  ("prepush" might be the more obvious name, no reason not to
> have both).
>
> For example, "make (pre)push" should probably fail if compiling a test
> causes a warning; this is currently true due to bug#75633.

I doubt it will help. We have already zillions of make targets; and
there are targets which would fit your needs. If people don't find the
proper target, we need to increase our doc. Not to include another
target nobody will find or remember as well.

See also my proposal for the 'make -C test <filename>-tests' call prior
to commit.

> (I discovered the "check-info" target while writing this, but that's
> precisely what I'm talking about.)

Sigh.

> If we automate this and keep the auto-generated metadata out of the .el
> files, what are the objections?

It's not only *.el changes, but also *.c changes, for example. And other
niggles we will run into.

> If it then turns out we don't need the manual :expensive tag at all
> anymore, we can drop it.

Bah! People still run 'make check' for good reasons, which is different
from 'make check-expensive', called on emba for example.

> Pip

Best regards, Michael.