kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[jp charras <jp.charras@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Le 29/08/2016 à 00:03, Wayne Stambaugh a écrit :
> The original decision to do it this way was made for very valid and
> logical reasons which I enumerated.  A similar patch has been sent to
> the project before and rejected for the same reasons.  Nothing has
> changed in regard to the original decision.  This probably happened
> before you where part of the project so it is understandable that you
> did not know.  I am not upset that it got committed, I am just saying
> that it should not have been committed.  I hope that clears things up.
> I do understand that some developers have this militant attitude that
> there should be *no* generated source in the source tree.  I just don't
> agree with that.

I also think these generated files, not depending on the compiler, or any version should be in the
source tree, like any other .cpp or .h source file, regardless the way they are created, and
therefore the commit is not a good idea.

Kicad contains roughly 25% of cpp .and .h files (icons and wxFormbuilder files) that are
automatically created.

"no generated source in the source tree" is not a good idea.

You sometimes need to open them with a text editor (especially for dialogs), or grep them.
Or they must be found by Poedit.

And *yes* I already opened in my editor some auto-generated files like specctra_keywords.cpp and
page_layout_reader_lexer.h
Not every day, but it happened.

So I really prefer to see them in the normal source tree.

> 
> On 8/28/2016 5:47 PM, Chris Pavlina wrote:
>> Quick poll. How many other people here think the generated files should
>> be in the source tree? Also, how many other people would have considered
>> moving them out and putting them with all the _other_ generated files to
>> be a potentially controversial commit?
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 05:30:10PM -0400, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> This commit
>>>
>>> https://git.launchpad.net/kicad/commit/?id=67230ac8e761d45560ef5611ea3aa8d8152ccb29
>>>
>>> should not have happened without discussion.  I should have nipped it in
>>> the bud before it got committed but I was busy visiting family.  This
>>> has been discussed before and the decision was made to do it this way
>>> because the files generated in the source tree were not configuration
>>> dependent and only need to be generated once(except the opengl shader
>>> generator which is a separate issue).  If a file is configuration
>>> dependent i.e. version.h and config.h, then is should be in the build
>>> path because it can be different depending on the build configuration.
>>> If it's not configuration dependent i.e. all of the s-expr files, it
>>> should stay in the source path because it is the same for every
>>> configuration.  It's also nice to be able to grep the s-expr files in
>>> the source tree as your writing your new file format rather than having
>>> to change to the build path.
>>>
>>> Please do not make the "there should never be generated source files in
>>> the source tree" argument.  This argument is flawed and leans too close
>>> to zealotry for my tastes.   The idea that your source tree is going to
>>> stay pristine is delusional.  Most editors and the patch command leave
>>> plenty of cruft in your source tree.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Wayne


-- 
Jean-Pierre CHARRAS