Consider replacement of Make and Makefile #7153
Replies: 3 comments 5 replies
-
@aaronsteers I didn't notice that, I was quite happy to have a "build docs" command inside make, so I'll offer an opinion. IMHO for open-source projects it is even more important than for "traditional in-house development" to have super quick setup 6 dev functionalities for new/existing contributors (https://www.thoughtworks.com/insights/blog/praise-go-script-part-i is pretty much my perspective & way of handling these). So I would urge to have that kind of functionality wrapped into something basic and simple. If you feel make doesn't quality, I'm a big fan of any of these two options:
And I would second your point about having that interwoven into the CI workflows. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I do miss having a Makefile, specifically for all repos to house a generic entrypoint for I ran into |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
We should consider https://github.com/nat-n/poethepoet as a Make replacement. It seems to integrate well with Python and Poetry, yet isn't limited to them. With it with can run shell commands/scripts, Python functions/scripts, and build composite tasks that are made up of other ones, e.g. a lint task that is composed of a call to mypy and ruff. It has good cross-platform support, seems easy to use, is simple, lets us supply arguments to the tasks, handles environment variables and Ideally we could just run |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
In this PR
We removed Makefile. I'm opening this discussion to explore what (if anything) might replace that in the future.
Some options we discussed in our Codeshare meeting today (Jan 5, 2022):
Of those options, I think I personally lean towards "cleaner Make" or "something new". Happy to explore any options, and (as discussed) this can stay a low priority / slow burn discussion. No rush to replace as of now.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions