Re: How do you hack on GNOME? How can we do better?
- From: Alberto Ruiz <aruiz gnome org>
- To: Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro gnome org>
- Cc: d-d-l <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: How do you hack on GNOME? How can we do better?
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 03:11:21 +0100
Hello Michael,
Another problem I didn't mention which is that sometime the checkout dir makes "make" go bonkers at some point even with jhbuild build -fac. It is quite often that I update my jhbuild setup after ages of not touching it and I have to basically "rm -rf * && git reset --hard" and configure again to get the build going again. Given how long it takes to jhbuild everything this is another extremely annoying point that we can't ensure won't hit people. You can't leave the thing building and go make a coffee, you have to work for the automation system instead of the other way around. It is really a disaster if you ask me that we enforce this on every GSoC student :/
Anyhow, why is it such a problem to resort to the latest buildable snapshot to work on a very specific modules? So say this libgit2 problem for instance: something broke in one module, I work on... say gedit. That depends on it. What are the chances of my modifications having a dependency on the stuff that was introduced while that module broke? the master/HEAD of any given module should most of the time just build fine with any latest buildable snapshot of the whole moduleset. There was a time at which I used GARNOME (a script that grabbed all the latest tarballs) and only CVS/SVN on the module I cared about because that was the most reliable way to get everything to build without issues and just focus on my module.
I guess the bit I don't understand is, why do we have to think in terms of "making jhbuild more like Continuous"? What's missing from Continuous to cover all the jhbuild usecases?
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]