OpenEuphoria

Re: Questions about SVN check-in policies for binaries

• Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> Jun 20, 2007
• 557 views

CChris wrote:
> As I start using my working copy of the svn repository for Euphoria, I am
> asking
> myself a couple questions about what I'll check in soon. Perhaps these points
> deserve to be written somewhere in the repository.
> 
> 1/ Is any developer supposed to have access to all platforms and compilers
> supported?

No, but you should be able to build on at least one platform,
so you can test your changes at run-time to some extent 
before checking them back in.

> If the answer is "no", then there is some unpredictability about what will be
> checked in in /bin. For instance, since I don't have lcc installed, I won't
> generate the lcc libs, and as a result they won't be in sync with libs I may
> have modified.
> Likewise, if I build say exw.exe, I may not be able to build exu. As a result,
> the contents of the checked /bn will reflect different states of the software
> again.

True. 

> 2/ (related, yet distinct) Since there is only one exu, one exw.exe etc, but
> since there is a plethora of compiler, compiler version and compile options
> under which the checked in executables may have been built, this is another
> cause of discrepancy and subtle bugs (because the executable was built with
> this compiler by the last developer, and not that one). And I'm not even
> considering
> the case where a zealed developer will have cross compiled all the
> executables,
> in case it is possible.
>
> 3/ DOS/Windows developers will return source files with /r/n line endings, and
> Linux/BSD developers will returns /n line endings. When Mac people chime in,
> they may have /r line endings. How is this other source of discrepancies
> handles?
> Ok, perhaps the answer here is: the subversion client takes care of this.

It's possible that the subversion client handles this.
I haven't seen any problems like this.
 
> A simple way to avoid the confusion about binnaries could be not to check
> binaries
> in at all. But I think there is a need for a clear statement about what to do.

I would say, don't bother to check in your binaries 
(executables, libraries, etc), just your source (and documentation).

Currently, I am the one who makes the official releases,
so I figure there is some value in my checking in
executables periodically, so others can test them if they want,
before I do a release.
 
Regards,
   Rob Craig
   Rapid Deployment Software
   http://www.RapidEuphoria.com