Pregenerated files: repo freeze and discourse
chrisj at rtems.org
Wed Aug 1 06:03:47 UTC 2012
On 1/08/12 1:44 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 07:41 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> I would like to request that we freeze all commits to RTEMS and
>> consider what to do about including generated files in the repository.
Gedare, I support this.
>> Agreement (much less consensus) was not reached and now we have a
>> large number of automatically generated files in rtems.git that
>> substantially bloats the size of the repository.
Gedare, I agreed.
> The sizes of the repos hardly has any impact on using the repos.
Ralf, based on what ? Gedare's link shows the amount of lines doubles.
>> So far I have not seen very clear explanation why adding these
>> generated files to the git repository is the best solution long-term
>> for RTEMS.
> I already tried to explain this before.
> The advantages are:
> - No need for "bootstrap".
Does this mean the bootstrap is going away as a result of this ?
> - Makes bugs in configuration files more visible.
Could you explain this ? I find the complexity of the autoconf and
automake set up we have in RTEMS difficult to follow so I fail to
understand how I am support to come to this conclusion.
> - Makes user mistakes in configuration files more visible.
Could you please explain this ?
>> The main problem we face is that switching branches with
>> generated files is troublesome,
> This is simply not true.
> Switching branches is supposed to wipe all such files away to replace
> them with the versions on the "switched-to branch".
> I.e. try working on local branches with all changes kept in git.
> When changing configure.acs/Makefiles.am, manually regenerate the files
> using autoreconf and commit the resulting changes.
Gedare was commenting on the issues with the files not in git.
>> All developers should feel free to contribute to this discussion and
>> weigh-in with suggestions about what should be done.
> With all due respect, I do not see much sense in this.
I am sure but other are struggling with the change and reason. The nice
thing about git is a clone could have been set up and what you propose
tested and evaluated.
We can see this. You I would like to see a discussion about this issue.
> To me this
> discussion already has become a shit storm, because some
> semi-knowledgiable folks are spreading FUD.
I have no interest in being an autoconf or automake expert. I wish to
development RTEMS. Maybe if you have given us a little more information
about the purpose, reasons and some examples then this might have been
avoided. Giving us something to play with would have helped. Abusing us
helps no one.
No one who posted agreed with the change. You should have respected that
and provided the detail and explained the case. Just pushing the change
in the repo is not
> People need to go through a learning curve and adopt their habits.
> that's all.
Could you please provide documentation on how we are suppose to use this
? For example can we mix generated files from different hosts ? Does a
change in any autotools require all generated files to be updated ?
There are many more questions.
More information about the devel