update

[git.ikiwiki.info.git] / doc / bugs / transitive_dependencies.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/bugs/transitive_dependencies.mdwn b/doc/bugs/transitive_dependencies.mdwn
index bdad67f6072f31b207568bb0a49ae3b569d633bd..c44fe7962ba4e90e864d955f7d378c61c56cadb9 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/bugs/transitive_dependencies.mdwn
+++ b/doc/bugs/transitive_dependencies.mdwn
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ Downsides here:
   modification to plugins/brokenlinks causes an unnecessary update of
   plugins, and could be solved by adding more dependency types.)
 
   modification to plugins/brokenlinks causes an unnecessary update of
   plugins, and could be solved by adding more dependency types.)
 

---[[Joey]] 
+[[done]] --[[Joey]] 

 
 > Some questions/comments...  I've thought about this a lot for [[todo/tracking_bugs_with_dependencies]].
 > 
 
 > Some questions/comments...  I've thought about this a lot for [[todo/tracking_bugs_with_dependencies]].
 > 


@@ -75,6 +75,13 @@ Downsides here:
 > the new and old html.  If there is a difference, then mark that page as having changed.  If there is no difference
 > then you don't need to mark that pages as changed, even though it has been rebuilt.  (This would ignore pages in meta-data that don't
 > cause changes in html, but I don't think that is a huge issue.)
 > the new and old html.  If there is a difference, then mark that page as having changed.  If there is no difference
 > then you don't need to mark that pages as changed, even though it has been rebuilt.  (This would ignore pages in meta-data that don't
 > cause changes in html, but I don't think that is a huge issue.)

+
+>> That is a good idea. I will have to look at it to see if the overhead of
+>> reading back in the html of every page before building actually is a
+>> win though. So far, I've focused on avoiding unnecessary rebuilds, and
+>> there is still some room for more dependency types doing so.
+>> (Particularly for metadata dependencies..) --[[Joey]] 
+

 >  * The second comment I have relates to cycles in transitive dependencies.  At the moment I don't think this is
 > possible, but with some additions it may well become so.  This could be problematic as it could lead to a)
 > updates that never complete, or b) it being theoretically unclear what the final result should be (i.e. you
 >  * The second comment I have relates to cycles in transitive dependencies.  At the moment I don't think this is
 > possible, but with some additions it may well become so.  This could be problematic as it could lead to a)
 > updates that never complete, or b) it being theoretically unclear what the final result should be (i.e. you


@@ -83,3 +90,5 @@ Downsides here:
 > two pages that include each other), you might want to put a limit on the number of times you'll rebuild a page in any
 > given run of ikiwiki.  Say, only allow a page to rebuild twice on any run, regardless of whether a page it depends on changes.
 > This is not a perfect solution, but would be a good approximation. -- [[Will]]
 > two pages that include each other), you might want to put a limit on the number of times you'll rebuild a page in any
 > given run of ikiwiki.  Say, only allow a page to rebuild twice on any run, regardless of whether a page it depends on changes.
 > This is not a perfect solution, but would be a good approximation. -- [[Will]]

+
+>> Ikiwiki only builds any given output file once per run, already. --[[Joey]]