pyrex .c versioning...
ian.clatworthy at internode.on.net
Wed Jun 6 03:31:12 BST 2007
Martin Pool wrote:
> On 6/6/07, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 07:53 -0500, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>> > Well both are problematic, but churn is probably more of an issue to
>> > me.
>> > I've always been of the mind that you shouldn't version auto-generated
>> > things.
>> I tend to flip flop based on audience.
>> Basically I think versioning auto generated things is ok when you expect
>> users [as opposed to devs] to ever run from source. In the squid project
>> we have no generated files versioned in our 'dev' branches, and in trunk
>> and the per-release branches - the branch users grab - we have configure
>> etc - the generated files.
> I tergiversate too. On the whole I'd default to not storing the
> generated files, and then asking our core non-developer users
> (fullermd, etc) whether this is a burden for them. Since we do
> release pretty often and we do make release candidates (which would
> contain the generated files) people who cannot generate them can still
> run something quite current.
> Also it's proposed that we should make nightly debs/tarballs.
My strong preference is not to version control generated files.
To put things in context in this case in particular, the pyrex code is
completely optional - Bazaar with run quite happily without it, just
slower. On "normal" trees, the speed difference may not be noticeable
More information about the bazaar