Re: Questions about SVN check-in policies for binaries
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> 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.
>
looks like a decent minimum to ask.
> > 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
> <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
It looks like we mostly agree on this. Perhaps writing it down in the source
overview.doc isn't a bad idea?
CChris
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
