Re: Source changes
Snipped first sections, in agreement with them.
>
> >Further, the reasons you give as examples are certainly not enough to
> >justify even a third of a veto. They certainly justify cooperative,
> >incremental amendment, not stifling conservatism.
> How about shoving a pile of untested mods into file i/o that Rob had just said
> no to? The less said about my feelings on that the better.
>
That's why I maintain them in a separate branch, asking for tests/benchmarks
using compilers I don't have. No reports so far. If I had measured anything
wrong, I'd have removed it off shelf already. I don't know what, if any, proof
you have for the "untested" qualifier. Could you elaborate?
> Anyway, by veto, I meant the 'next weekend' part of an announcement "Barring
> objections I will port these changes to the main trunk next weekend". Any
> disagreement
> should be resolved before the changes are applied.
>
Ok. Is any disagreement eligible, or should it rely on provable facts (bug
report, benchmarking and such) to be considered? Guess I think the former isn't a
good idea, while the latter is plain common sense.
> >Perhaps all iterpreters are not built right away, but Rob can do so,
> On behalf of Rob may I say that is quite rude of you even to suggest that!
>
Uh?
Not my intent anyway. I think you lost me there.
The tool which is in the source directory, build.bat, stops whenever it doesn't
find any of the supported compilers. Rob stated that having all of them was not a
minimum requirement for committing tested code.
For instance, I repeatedly asked if it is possible, and how, to build exu under
Windows; I'd be happy to provide all three interpreters. What I was suggesting is
that Rob could help out with the *missing* interpreters.
Again, no rudeness implied or intended. If you have another replacement idea,
I'm a taker.
> >and anyone with enough different OSes and compilers can just as well,
> >running build.bat or buildu.
> So, if it is that easy, why is it not done yet? You may find more people
> willing
> to test if they do not have to install a C compiler and SVN client.
>
Let's be specific.
I posted my modified code on http://oedoc.free.fr in the value_get/ and
get_fixed/ directories. The former only holds get.e, because no modified
interpreter is required. Anyone can test.
The latter, corresponding to the branch I maintain, has get.e and a modified
exw.exe. I could add ex.exe, will do tonight. Now how do I add exu (see above)?
So far, people have to go to svn and build it if they want to test exu on that
branch. Otherwise, they don't need to do so and can just go ahead with the
available modified files for DOS/Windows.
What should I do next or instead?
There is an easy answer indeed: get another box and learn Linux. An easy one,
really? From recurring posts in this forum, I am not quite sure, it appears that
their dll hell is worse than Windows'. Of course, some Linux developers will have
the same kind of issues regarding DOS/Windows, I bet. And they may be able to
build only one interpreter.
I'm not even considering the problems that could arise from different behaviours
under various flavours of Unix around, if only because of my utter incompetence
in this respect.
CChris
> Regards,
> Pete
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
