mahout-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: An last-ditch argument against checking in generated sources...
Date Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:10:48 GMT
OK, that's one vote. Aside from the mistake you found, that's a good
reason to pull the patch back for a bit.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Ted Dunning <> wrote:
> The only situation that I know of where checking in the generated sources is
> a good thing is where not everybody has the capability to generate them.
> My best example is thrift.  Compiling and installing thrift can be a pain in
> the ** on some platforms because there are lots of package dependencies and
> some take a Looong time to compile (libboost for instance).  Checking in
> thrift generated sources is a nice thing because of this and it is easy to
> have a profile that can detect whether thrift is available.
> With velocity or similar java based generators, I would expect full
> integration with maven and transparent source generation.  In that case, my
> needle swings back to the "don't check in generated source" side of the
> dial.
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Benson Margulies <>wrote:
>> Let me describe the scenario I start with, just in case by some chance
>> you all decide that it's not too bad.
>> There's a maven plugin that reads templates and writes sources.
>> We configure it to write them to target/generated-sources/...
>> The plugin automatically adds that directory to the compilation.
>> So, whenever you type maven, the sources are generated and compiled.
>> So you have the sources from typing maven, and you don't have to worry
>> about checking them in after changing a template, and you don't have
>> to worry about someone changing a generated source and not changing
>> the underlying template.
>> If this doesn't persuade, here's plan b.
>> the output of the generator goes into src/main/java, but the generator
>> is only put into operation with -Pregenerate, so that those
>> unconcerned with these templates don't see a lot of M's on these
>> files. You might say, 'what M's? the new version will be textually
>> identical, and svn is smarter than that.' If that's the consensus
>> view, I'll just run it that way.
> --
> Ted Dunning, CTO
> DeepDyve

View raw message