Inheritance of Target Incompatibility #19200
Replies: 3 comments 3 replies
-
Review request acknowledged... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thanks for taking this on @fmeum (and @philsc for ongoing attention & support). I read through carefully and added lots of pedantic comments. Thoughts:
So I suggest we get consensus on these core themes as abstract principles, then consensus on how the implementation fulfills them. I imagine the latter will be easier. I hope this doesn't come across as obstructionist. I'm thinking this way because I worry about the increasing number of toggles coming into the model: multiple flags, repo membership, propagation semantics, direct vs. indirect, etc. The more we have the more complicated the intersection between them and the harder it is to support a clear story. I'm hoping further first principle contemplation could uncover more opportunity to minimize these toggles. https://github.com/pcjanzen @trybka as other notable participants. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Separate thread:
I'd also love to hear more clarification of how these types of projects work: what kinds of binaries / tests, mixed together how, what real-life changes alter their compatibility properties? How do they integrate the current query-and-tag approach? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This is the discussion thread for the Inheritance of Target Incompatibility proposal, which aims to make it both more obvious and more configurable how target incompatibility caused by
target_compatible_with
propagates up the dependency graph.Feedback is very welcome, here or on the doc.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions