Git Cleanup and Unfreezing
chrisj at rtems.org
Tue Aug 7 03:47:50 UTC 2012
On 7/08/12 10:55 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 7/08/12 4:42 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> On 08/06/2012 07:30 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>> On 08/06/2012 12:16 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>>> On 08/06/2012 07:07 PM, Thomas Doerfler wrote:
>>>>>> Am 06.08.2012 19:00, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
>>>>>>> On 08/06/2012 06:37 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>>>>>> The general consensus has been to remove the generated
>>>>>>>> files from the repo.
>>>>>>> Whose decision? Please give the each individual's names.
>>> Joel, provide the names of those who decided to revert these changes.
>> Please add me to the list of those who want this removed.
> Again, I want to hear the name of the individual who dicided to execute
> pull the trigger of this nuclear bomb aiming at me.
If you had provided a means for all developers to review your changes
before being committed and provided some documentation about the changes
and how it effects developers this whole event could have been avoided.
You are still free to propose your changes so they can be evaluated.
Currently I have not seen anyone support your change.
> His step was premature and inexcusable rude.
Sorry but your commits where premature. I can only ask you be
responsible with the access rights you have.
>> I have tested the changes you have added and posted the results and
>> there are differences on MacOS to the committed source.
> URL to the archive, please ... I did not see this.
>> I will extend this discussion to Windows testing of this change. I
>> cannot get any results on Windows because autoconf cannot be built
>> . You pushed us to this version and did not complete a full range
>> of testing before doing so.
> Right, because rtems4.11 is the HEAD ... if there are issues with your
> setup, post them upstream of the tool in question.
We should have bleeding edge tools and stable tools on head. When
bleeding edge has passed all gcc tests and proved to be stable on head
then we can decide to move to them. Your current process is
questionable. If something fails such as autoconf on Windows we have no
where to go.
>> Being able build the tools and RTEMS does not make them suitable for
> Correct. RTEMS is not suiteable for releasing, ... not for the reasons
> you mention, but for other reasons.
Who does the testing ? Making them available for download then waiting
for problems to appear and if there are none concluding they are ok in
my view is not testing.
>> We need real test results. I suspect your cross-compiled mingw
>> versions are wrong. You cannot cross compile autoconf because it is
>> broken because it embeds the paths of the build host in to its various
>> scripts plus it checks the build hosts tools and not target's tools.
> How comes others are able to use them and only you are complaining?
Sigh. I raise an issue and then I am labelled as 'complaining'. Why
would anyone bother to raise issues with you ?
They are broken. I do not use your autoconf/automake on Windows. The
autoconf maintainers have determined which m4 versions are not suitable
yet Windows users have silently been left using them. Now we have to
wait for the MinGW project to fix m4.
>>>>>> I have clearly voted to revert the commits in question,
>>>>> ... and I replied to you, trying to explain that all of your
>>>>> remarks do
>>>>> not apply.
>>>> So any discussion was after the fact? With no time for thoughtful
>>>> analysis? This decision should have had a long list of questions
>>>> and answers and plenty of time to answer them.
>>> Well, I am not commenting one details of patches addressing domains, I
>>> do not understand, but accept them as "the maintainer will know what he
>>> is doing". Now you are so bold to be wanting force me to discuss patches
>>> with the "clueless comments" from the mob"?
>> Please take a moment and collect your thought before commenting. If
>> you are the only person who can make changes in the build system the
>> project has a serious problem.
> You are twisting my words - That's not what I said.
>> Personally I do not accept we are because I for one do know the build
>> system and all its details so yes I can comment on your changes. I
>> also know all the bugs and issues that exist in it and I choose not to
>> comment on them because it is simpler to work around them than deal
>> with you.
> Pardon, but the last posting of yours, I replied to speaks a very
> different language.
I do not want to be an autoconf or automake expert and have no interest
in the contents of the files it generates. I do understand the build
system you have created and how it works plus the problems it has.
> You had asked if these files are supposed to be independent - Yes, they
> are, because they are _generated SOURCES_
I cannot test Windows and MacOS has differences. I have not looked into
why. The fact there can be differences makes the whole change questionable.
More information about the devel