kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/13/2016 1:47 PM, Nick Østergaard wrote:
> 2016-11-13 19:29 GMT+01:00 Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> On 11/13/2016 1:15 PM, Nick Østergaard wrote:
>>> 2016-11-13 18:59 GMT+01:00 Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> Hey Nick,
>>>>
>>>> The problem with the boost 1.61 bug fix in the master branch is that it
>>>> includes c++11 code.  That's why I didn't merge it into the stable
>>>> branch.  I want to avoid c++11 in the stable 4 branch so we will have to
>>>> let package devs know that they cannot build kicad against boost >=
>>>> 1.61.  If someone can fix the boost context issue without using any
>>>> c++11 code, I would accept a patch for that.
>>>
>>> Good.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I specifically changed the version string code to accept only two
>>>> conditions for creating version strings.  Case 1 is using git to
>>>> generate the version string when KicadVersion.cmake is set to the
>>>> default which it is current.  Case 2 is that I (or the release manager)
>>>> sets the version and branch settings in KiCadVersion.cmake which
>>>> overrides the git version string.  I don't want developers setting this
>>>> as we have in the past.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by developers setting this? I don't think any
>>> developers have set anything here.
>>
>> Prior to the changes I made, you had to set KICAD_BUILD_VERSION and/or
>> KICAD_REPO to generate a stable version string.  Otherwise, you either
>> go the git version string or no-vcs-found.  This didn't work for package
>> devs who expect the source archive to build with the appropiate version
>> string without defining them at config time.
>>
>>>
>>>> Apparently package devs hate it because they
>>>> had remember to set the version and branch strings at config time when
>>>> building from source archives otherwise they end up with no-vcs-found
>>>> version string.
>>>
>>> Well, I have a hard time to see how the current solution in 4.0 is
>>> addressing this issue. Does this mean that on the commit where you tag
>>> it 4.0.5 will change the set( _wvh_version_str "no-vcs-found" ) with
>>> set( _wvh_version_str "4.0.5" )?
>>
>> Once the version is set to something other than "no-vcs-found" in
>> KiCadVersion.cmake, it takes precedence.  What I plan on doing is
>> setting it to 4.0.5 in the stable version tagged as 4.0.5 (hey that
>> almost makes sense!).  When I create the source archive, it wont be
>> necessary to define KICAD_BUILD_VERSION or KICAD_REPO.  Once that is
>> complete, I will can change the version string in KiCadVersion.cmake to
>> "4.0.6-pre" or something like that.
>>
>>>> I see Chris added this back into the master branch but
>>>> I'm not sure I'm going to keep it.  Developers should be using the
>>>> version string generated by git and package devs should be using the
>>>> version set in KiCadVersion.cmake.  I can't see any reason for a third
>>>> option.
>>>
>>> As it works in 4.0 now, I can't set -DKICAD_BUILD_VERSION=4.0.5_rc1.
>>> It will still use the git version.
>>>
>>> I would expect to be able to override the version string in any case.
>>> For example if I wanted to make a release candidate build to sort out
>>> some packaging issues, it would be nice to see from the build that it
>>> was a release candidate if anyone reports a bug on it.
>>
>> If you really need to be able to define the version at config time, I
>> can leave Chris' recent changes assuming they didn't break the behavior
>> of KiCadVersion.cmake.  Do other projects allow changing the build
>> version at config time?  I got the feeling from some of the comments
>> that this was "atypical".
> 
> I am ok with it working the other way where we can have a hardcoded
> version in the source for the stable branch. But really, I think it
> should be set now as 4.0.5-devel then. Although I do not have any hard
> feeling for using, -pre, -dev, -devel or whatever that is not -rcX.
> 
> But I think it should always be overridable by defining it manually.
> For eample for the nigthly PPA's they have a version string like
> "201611122049+7349~55~ubuntu14.04.1"  and to track down issues with
> that if you want to know what exact build and source is used it is
> easier to find if that could be used a version string.
> 
> If this happens, I am also ok with removing the KICAD_REPO_NAME option
> and only use KICAD_BUILD_VERSION to override.
> 
> I hope you can understand why I still want it to be overridable.

I'm fine with that.  I guess I should have asked before I removed it.
The order of precedence should be: configuration defined,
KiCadVersion.cmake, then the git version.  @Chris, is this what your
changes do?  I didn't get time to look at them and this week is going to
be crazy at work so I may not have time to look over them until next
weekend.

> 
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will be in an out all day today so if I don't reply I'm not ignoring
>>>> you I've just got a full plate today and will respond as soon as I get a
>>>> chance.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Wayne
>>>>
>>>> On 11/12/2016 11:55 AM, Nick Østergaard wrote:
>>>>> Hi Wayne,
>>>>>
>>>>> Good news to see a new release, but I wonder about two things:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Boost 1.61 compatibility and bugfix?
>>>>> 2. Release version string.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should the release should include the boost 1.61 fix. It was discussed in:
>>>>> [Kicad-developers] About Bug 1604841: Pcbnew crash at moving via, and
>>>>> boost::context fixes to make it compatible with boost 1.61
>>>>>
>>>>> And there is a patch in [1], although it does not explicitly state
>>>>> where it is from, but it looks similar to [2] and [3]. With out the
>>>>> patch in [1] I can not build it against boost 1.62 on archlinux.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, I would like to know how we are supposed to set the release
>>>>> infor for the version string. For the 4.0.0--4.0.4 you are supposed to
>>>>> use the following options to set the version string:
>>>>>
>>>>> -DKICAD_REPO_NAME=stable -DKICAD_BUILD_VERSION=4.0.5
>>>>>
>>>>> But KICAD_REPO_NAME does not seem to exist anymore... even though I
>>>>> set KICAD_BUILD_VERSION it gets overridden by the git info and the
>>>>> version string becomes:
>>>>> #define KICAD_FULL_VERSION "(2016-11-09 revision 18f77b8)-4.0"
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have expected to get something like we are used to as,
>>>>> "4.0.5-stable" for example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nick
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/boost-1.61.patch?h=packages/kicad
>>>>> [2] https://git.launchpad.net/kicad/commit/?id=06d4894fdbeb00727cdcc667b8899ad73d8eb1c2
>>>>> [3] https://git.launchpad.net/kicad/commit/?id=78bc3c65de6c03d19be9902327d08cd4d87c229c
>>>>> [4] https://lists.launchpad.net/kicad-developers/msg25556.html
>>>>>
>>>>> 2016-11-11 23:44 GMT+01:00 Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>> This is the last call for patches to the 4 stable branch.  If I don't
>>>>>> hear anything, I will set version string and tag 4.0.5 in the stable
>>>>>> branch on Sunday and give our library, doc, translation, and package
>>>>>> devs a couple of weeks to prepare before I make the official announcement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wayne
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>>>>>> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>>>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>>
>>