Comparing version 0.1.1 to 0.1.2
{ | ||
"name": "mekano", | ||
"version": "0.1.1", | ||
"version": "0.1.2", | ||
"description": "maintain, update and regenerate groups of files", | ||
@@ -5,0 +5,0 @@ "main": "index.js", |
@@ -15,4 +15,4 @@ # ![mekano](https://cdn.mediacru.sh/0hecryCVR3vS.svg) | ||
unnecessary work); | ||
* liberally aims to **lessen the frustration** that can occur working with GNU | ||
*make(1)* on small or medium projects; | ||
* liberally aims to **lessen the frustration** that might occur working with | ||
GNU *make(1)* on small projects; | ||
* tries to be balanced between **speed and convenience**; | ||
@@ -92,4 +92,3 @@ * works **best** with a **powerful shell** (like bash & co.), that it does not | ||
[UNIX *make(1)*](http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/make.html) | ||
utility, of which it modestly tries to be a 21th-century alternative (not a | ||
replacement). | ||
utility. | ||
@@ -409,6 +408,7 @@ *mekano* only knows how to update files. It is not well suited for so-called | ||
* it's still in beta and may be unstable; | ||
* it's still in beta / unstable; | ||
* too high-level, you have specific dependency needs; | ||
* no logic, no 'if', limited semantics; | ||
* might be too slow for medium or large projects. | ||
* no 'tasks'; | ||
* may be too slow for medium or large projects. | ||
@@ -415,0 +415,0 @@ ### Why not reusing the make syntax? |
116358