Re: build system work

[Carl Sorensen]

On 3/4/11 11:09 AM, "Colin Campbell" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 11-03-04 10:54 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> On 3/4/11 10:31 AM, "Colin Campbell"<address@hidden>  wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm the noob here, so I'll defer to greater wisdom.  A couple of
>>> thoughts do occur, though: using the CG to collect discoveries, insights
>>> etc. has the virtues Graham points out, those of permanence and use of
>>> existing technologies, but it risks limiting contributions from those
>>> who don't build docs more than once. A wiki has the advantage of
>>> possibly wider input and access, but requires separate infrastructure.
>>> As a somewhat in between approach, I think we should try to keep the
>>> discussion visible to the devels and Frogs as much as possible, so they
>>> can feel free to chime in.  That suggests a special subject line on
>>> postings to -devel, or perhaps a separate list (Google group?), with
>>> filters on local e-maiul clients, if desired.  Patches can go to
>>> reitveld, again with a special subject line.  Work would be done in a
>>> new branch of the git repo. Perhaps Phil would take the lead on the
>>> project, and coordinate updates to the CG and git master.
>> My preference would be to have an issue on google code, with a priority of
>> low, under which one-time users could post their experiences.
>> 
>> I'd prefer *not* to put patches for the CG on Rietveld; I'd rather just see
>> them pushed.  I think there's no sense discussing them at this point.
>> Better just to capture them.
>> 
>> I don't think we need a different branch.  We have a different section in
>> the CG, so this won't mess up master.  By putting the changes in master,
>> they'll automatically build daily on kainhofer, so if we have some who don't
>> have build capability on their machines, they can still see updated docs.
>> 
>> The main difficulty I see with Graham's original proposed workflow is that
>> not everybody has git push access, so we need somebody who will volunteer to
>> push patches from those without access.

> I think this project goes beyond just updating the docs, Carl: the build
> system itself is in need of a complete rebuild, particularly for the doc
> section, but even the main part has its . . . peculiarities.  It seems
> that the project *will* require a separate branch from master, because
> we'll be working on the actual build process, not just describing it.

I absolutely agree.  But Graham's proposal was that we *not* start working
on the build process yet.  The proposal was to start by documenting what the
build system does.  And he estimated that the documentation process would
take 50 hours of development time.

My comments are only about the documentation process, which I think is a
healthy way to start.

Once we are ready to start the revision to the build system, whether it's
cleaning up the existing system, or moving to waf or scons, or something
else entirely, we'll certainly need a separate branch, and we'll need
patches on Rietveld.  But I don't think that project needs any visibility on
frogs -- it's way over the head of frogs.  Anybody who is contributing to
build system revision is clearly a developer, IMO.

Thanks,

Carl