It's make-like but supposedly improves on some of the arcane aspects of make (I can't judge how successful it is at that as I've never used make in anger).
It's make-like but supposedly improves on some of the arcane aspects of make (I can't judge how successful it is at that as I've never used make in anger).
That makes make a great entry point for any project. Does anyone have a general suggestion about how to work around this? The goal being, sync a project and not need to install anything to get going. One thing I do sometimes is to use make as the entry point, and it has an init target to install the necessary tools to get going (depends on who I know to be the target audience).
E.g. in one project it will install rbenv, bundle, npm, yarn etc. Call Rake, npx, that odd docker wrapper, etc. Or deploy with git in one project and through capistrano or ansible in another.
As a dev, in daily mode, all you need is 'make lint && make test && make deploy'. All the underlying tools and their intricacies are only needed when it fails or when you want to change stuff.
So while it's replaced one use of Make for me, I can't rightly call it a Make replacement.
if it was opt-in to him monitoring i might be more open. maybe i should fork and change the filename to keep this from happening
edit: Yeah, I can't see how I can make it work for a file-based approach.