Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development
Changing build options, should force a rebuild
Game_Ender:
So we are removing the full rebuild dialog right? Or are we just using principle when its convenient?
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: Game_Ender on July 18, 2006, 10:54:26 pm ---So we are removing the full rebuild dialog right? Or are we just using principle when its convenient?
--- End quote ---
There is a difference:If I change the compiler I know definetely that a re-build is required. But if I change compiler/linker options and stuff I don't.
So this question is issued because I might want to change other compilers too, before doing e.g. a workspace re-build instead of a project re-build.
Again: I'm not against this and it was offered that this could be implemented by somebody. But don't you think there are so many other issues that are really more important like that...
Edit: ...especially since this causes such a controversy discussion?
iw2nhl:
We could post a poll... :lol:
sethjackson:
--- Quote from: iw2nhl on July 18, 2006, 11:23:35 pm ---We could post a poll... :lol:
--- End quote ---
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I vote we poll to have a poll... Whatever. :lol: :lol:
Game_Ender:
Sorry I should of been more clear, I was speaking of dialog that warns of how long a rebuild would take. It was supposed to be remark on the irony that its just as obvious a rebuild will take long as changing the compilier options requires a rebuild. Yet we still warn the user about how long a full rebuild will take, yet fight tooth and nail to make sure we don't warn in the other circumstance. Hence the comment about the not standing by the principle: "Obvious warningss that can be shown only once make the IDE less user friendly to its main user group: Experienced software developers".
EDIT: I just think the featured should be allowed if someone makes implements it. It just seemed Thomas thought it shouldn't be included at all.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version