Thu Jul 7 20:09:29 CEST 2011
Closing the loop....
1) Rebar popped generating nodes. One this happens all regenerations
the Nodes are sanitized.
(Issue filed https://issues.basho.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1132)
2) Node rebuilding failed due to backgrounded process
3) Rebar would no longer build in one particular directory ... the
reltool spec was
not generating correctly and would ONLY contain the .app file and
none of the .beam entries.
4) Rebar would generate fine in other directories using the same source tree.
Reboots did not fix it.
Tree deletion did not fix it.
The missing component?
1.5) See a problem, instantly make a backup "just in case" and name
Why is this significant?
Because at the same directory level, foo and foo_backup both appear to
trip Rebar's pattern matching during a generate!
Fix: rename "<proj>_backup" to "asdf_<proj>_backup" to remove
collision and all generations work correctly in all directories.
Off to file a bug with Basho on it but something to be aware of in the
meantime for Rebar users.
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Mike Oxford <moxford@REDACTED> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Tim Watson <watson.timothy@REDACTED> wrote:
>> On 7 July 2011 12:31, H. Diedrich <hd2010@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> On 6 July 2011 01:52, Mike Oxford <moxford@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> (Not to mention just plain annoying devs to the point
>>> they walk away from it, which is what kills more languages over time
>>> than anything else.)
>>> You are saying Erlang has the more annoying devs?
>>> Care to elaborate?
>> I think he meant that the tools annoy devs to the point they walk away
>> before seeing the benefits.
> Tim is correct; the erlang community is very good and I was referring
> to the toolset.
> "Not to mention just plain annoying (the) devs to the point (that)
> they walk away..."
> Sorry for the confusion.
More information about the erlang-questions