A Cry For Sanity

[Andrew John Hughes]

2008/6/26 Andrew John Hughes <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org>:
> 2008/6/26 Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>:
>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>> 2008/6/26 Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>:
>>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>> 2008/6/26 Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>:
>>>>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>> Is there a particular reason we keep generated files (configure,
>>>>>>> aclocal.m4, Makefile.in) in the repository?  I ideally like to remove
>>>>>>> them for the following reasons:
>>>>>> It's much easier for a person who just wants to download and build
>>>>>> not to have to regenerate the auto* scripts.  autotools are notoriously
>>>>>> sensitive to having the exact versions installed.  If we check in the
>>>>>> generated scripts they do not have to run auto* locally.  It's about
>>>>>> lowering the barrier to entry: if we don't check in the generated
>>>>>> scripts it'll be much harder for people to get started.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's this sensitivity that also swings it the other way from me; I've
>>>>> had to be selective
>>>>> on which systems I alter IcedTea to avoid drastically changing the autogenerated
>>>>> files due to version changes in the autotools.
>>>> So what?  As long as the files still work that doesn't matter.  No-one
>>>> needs to look at the diffs between autogenerated files.
>>>
>>> But they became a problem when the real diffs are obscured and we don't have
>>> any other form of patch announcement than Mercurial commit messages.
>>
>> That's a fair point.  We are not handling patch mailings well.
>>
>>>>> As for people getting started, hacking on IcedTea pretty much
>>>>> requires having the autotools as most of the changes are to
>>>>> Makefile.am and configure.ac.  If you're just talking about
>>>>> building, then that's why we have releases.
>>
>>>> That's a bad attitude problem: the source tree is for us developers,
>>>> and mere mortals get to use the releases we've handed down from
>>>> Mount Olympus.
>>
>>> I'm not going to anything like that extreme.  I'm merely pointing
>>> out that someone choosing to go to the extra length of downloading
>>> the code using a version-control tool and who is prepared to work
>>> with the 'bleeding-edge' would probably expect a little more trouble
>>> in doing so.  In the process, they would learn the skills needed to
>>> contribute to the project itself.  In contrast, we spend a lot of
>>> time perfecting a release as much as possible to ensure that there
>>> is as little trouble as possible.
>>
>> Maybe.  That does sound to me like the "it's hard for us to develop,
>> so it doesn't matter if it's hard for people to build too."
>>
>
> The intention was to make the common case the easiest, and the other cases
> easy enough :)
>
>>> This isn't about segregating users, but about making things easier
>>> for the majority using a particular method of source code
>>> distribution.  For a release, I believe this is end users and
>>> distros who want to build the code with as little trouble as
>>> possible.  With the code in the VCS, this is the developers and
>>> prospective developers.
>>
>> OK, I'll give you this: if the *majority* of people who use Mercurial
>> are those who have to regenerate and check in the results, then the
>> generated scripts should go.
>>
>
> I believe that the majority by far are people actively hammering those
> two files in the IcedTea repository rather than the 'common builder' who
> just wants to download and try the latest and greatest.  We have very
> little overhead in producing a release, so producing these regularly
> and keeping the tree free of generated autotools files seems the best
> option.
>
> IcedTea is a fairly unique project.  Not many projects effectively result
> in two files getting changed by just about each and every patch.  I think
> this is also the cause of some VCS issues we have, but not all.
>
>> Andrew.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew :-)
>
> Support Free Java!
> Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
> http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
> http://openjdk.java.net
>
> PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
> Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8
>

[Trying again as the removed generated files are so big the patch is
too big for the mailing list]

So shall I commit this?

2008-07-07  Andrew John Hughes  <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org>

       * ChangeLog: Fix typos.
       * Makefile.in,
       * configure,
       * aclocal.m4: Removed.

-- 
Andrew :-)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net

PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8