Timo has given you various scenarios as to where the proposed
system is an improvement on the existing.
Maybe someone can give an reason as to why the current layout is
better than the suggested one?
So you want more reasons?
Instead of focusing on the build, which is where most of our
arguments have lay so far, I’ll discuss the merits from a tree structure
perspective:
Firstly, I don’t agree with the ‘easier to find’
statement. This may be true for someone with no knowledge of NT, but reactos
devs are supposed to know this stuff.
If the ‘easier to find’ statement was valid, then I
think Timo’s suggestion of laying everything out alphabetically would be
better still.
I’d much prefer to go to the audio directory to work on everything
from portcls.sys up to mmsys.cpl. Things could be committed together instead of
separately forcing 2 separate builds on buildbot
You have to look to the future. Let’s consider how Microsoft
will do things.
Do you think the Windows source code is dumped into one big TFS
database with everything filed under module type?
This would mean Joe on the kernel team would be effected by what
Sam in the audio department is doing. Changes made by Steve on the COM team
might force a rebuild of what Ian is working on in the shell team.
You can’t expect everyone to have a separate branch of the
entire source code to avoid this problem. The code is modularized and people
are given access to the areas which they work on.
Imagine if Linux wasn’t modularized and changes made to X
or Gnome forced rebuilds of the kernel. It would be carnage.
The proposed layout also lends itself well to the branching
system we’ve been wanting to work towards. Branches could be more easily
assigned to specific areas and we’d be able to give out commit access
more easily.
-
Student devs could be given access to the applications directory.
-
We could build up an ntcore directory, make it bootable (aka
minwin) and kernel devs could be given branches to this area without the noise
of a full OS.
-
Graphics guys could be checkout the build tools, an ntcore and a
win32core areas. They could have write access to win32core and work on that
without worrying about what the student devs are doing in the apps dir.
As the tree grows I really don’t see how the current
layout will remain feasible.
Something will have to change and I don’t think hacking
the build system around a broken tree structure is the answer.
Ged.
From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org
[mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Aleksey Bragin
Sent: 26 July 2010 23:10
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Tree restructure (was: Re: [ros-diffs]
[akhaldi]48236: Create a branch forcmakebringup.)
Please,
this would be my last reply to this thread. Yet another time I'm getting an
answer that reshuffling files in the directory makes build time shorter.
Seriously, am I writing with background and foreground text colors being
set to the same value or what?
Is there
any real, serious reason to break compatibility with all existing branches,
make modules harder to find, whatever else, BESIDES hacking around a broken
build system which can't have proper grouping? I proposed to properly solve
this with either sysgen, cmake or anything else. With a build system which does
not suck. Not with a build system, where you need to adjust file paths in order
to be able to control build process!
I'm glad to
participate in a discussion about pros and cons of a proposed new
tree layout, but so far the only thing I keep listening to is that it's
somehow going to make build time shorter. Let's be honest: It won't. If a
1 liner in PSDK causes whole tree to rebuild, it will take the same with
the new layout. It will just be built in a different order, but still all
will be rebuilt, because of (somehow broken, or too strict, or incompatible
with the makefile) dependencies tracking. It won't make build time shorter
until a new build system is in place.
WBR,
Aleksey
Bragin.
From: Ged
Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, July 27,
2010 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Tree
restructure (was: Re: [ros-diffs] [akhaldi]48236: Create a branch
forcmakebringup.)
On 26 July 2010 21:29, Aleksey Bragin <aleksey@reactos.org>
wrote:
Regarding the current layout is logical: We could sort the modules
alphabetically, that would be as "logical". But it's not reasonable.
Great, we came to an agreement: it is logical :).
Reasonability is discussable...
I'm yet to hear any arguments as to how the current layout
is better than the suggested one.
As the tree grows in size it's going to become more and more
difficult to manage.
Do we really have to wait until we're at a point where it
takes 5 hours to build after making a 1 line change to a PSDK file?
As far as I can tell, our current layout, by type, only
serves to make modules easy to find.
In comparison, Timo's alphabetical point is actually as
reasonable as the current layout.
Ged.
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev