river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: build mechanisms
Date Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:26:24 GMT
Sim IJskes - QCG wrote:
> On 14-01-11 11:49, Dan Creswell wrote:
>> So the question is, when do we need consensus on such things?
>
> On the practical side, for replacing the build system. yes.
>
> If we have consensus in replacing it, i will instantly stop thinking 
> about the current system. I won't even dare to refactor a bit. But 
> now, with the replacement coming or not, it's in a vacuum, 
> thinking/not thinking, forking/not forking, thinking but not coding? 
> And to be honest, i can't imagine i'm the only one. I'm sure somebody 
> out there will think: "What are they going to do with my contribution 
> if i make any? Accept it in trunk? Let it rot in skunk? Delete it all 
> together? Should i better start collecting stamps or doing the 
> groceries?".
>
>

Well one problem with the current build system is the time taken, not 
only to build it, but to test it, taking around 20 hours.  A modular 
build will speed development, allowing developers to concentrate on one 
module and the tests applicable to that module.

If your coding up new classes etc, you don't need to worry much about 
the build system, since we can copy across your code and include it into 
a module, if you need to change the public API in some way, then we need 
to discuss it first.

But since it does also present the possibility of stagnation for some, 
it has become a priority to see this work completed quickly.

I'm building modules from trunk revision 1057550 based on the 
contributions made by Dennis, the reason I'm copying from trunk is to 
retain the SVN history for all source files.

Hope this helps,

Peter.



Mime
View raw message