> I disagree, and there is a huge philosophical gulf of understanding between my view and those who feel differently.
Let me ask you two simple questions:
1. I work on a project in a git repo and do a git pull to get the latest changes to the branch. I do the equivalent of `make` with my build system, and encounter a problem (either a build error, or some unexpected bad behavior from the built artifact). Should I be allowed to conclude that someone has messed up, or do I first have to engage in some gyrations to make sure I have a "clean` build and the correct dependencies (git clean -dxf, issue commands to manually check and update dependencies etc.)?
2. I push some code after running the equivalent of `make test`, which passes successfully. A collaborator informs me that after pulling their build is broken or there is some unexpected failure, which does not appear to be a flake. Should I just expect this to happen every now and then and live with it?
If your answer to 1. is "No" and your answer to 2. is "Yes" than there may indeed be a gulf of understanding, but probably not a "philosophical" one. If your answers are "Yes" and "No" respectively, then I'd certainly love to hear what philosophical more aligned general purpose build tools have this property, because I'd be interested in investigating them. The only other tools in this space that I'm currently aware of of even making an attempt in this direction are either different granularity (nix) or unreleased/more of an academic POC (redo/shake).
Let me ask you two simple questions:
1. I work on a project in a git repo and do a git pull to get the latest changes to the branch. I do the equivalent of `make` with my build system, and encounter a problem (either a build error, or some unexpected bad behavior from the built artifact). Should I be allowed to conclude that someone has messed up, or do I first have to engage in some gyrations to make sure I have a "clean` build and the correct dependencies (git clean -dxf, issue commands to manually check and update dependencies etc.)?
2. I push some code after running the equivalent of `make test`, which passes successfully. A collaborator informs me that after pulling their build is broken or there is some unexpected failure, which does not appear to be a flake. Should I just expect this to happen every now and then and live with it?
If your answer to 1. is "No" and your answer to 2. is "Yes" than there may indeed be a gulf of understanding, but probably not a "philosophical" one. If your answers are "Yes" and "No" respectively, then I'd certainly love to hear what philosophical more aligned general purpose build tools have this property, because I'd be interested in investigating them. The only other tools in this space that I'm currently aware of of even making an attempt in this direction are either different granularity (nix) or unreleased/more of an academic POC (redo/shake).