On 4/10/07, Aaron Spike <aaron@...476...> wrote:
John R. Culleton wrote:
On Monday 09 April 2007 22:56, Bill Baxter wrote: As a Linux user I vote for traditional ./configure, make and make install just like most other Linux apps use. I have no opinion on how the program should be packaged for Windows users.
A pro for both buildtool and CMake is that they will use the same process on Linux, Mac and Windows.
One of the advantages of Bakefile is that it does generate native build scripts. On Linux it spits out the regular autotools ./configure; make; make install scripts. On Windows it spits out real Visual Studio projects (or a variety of other makefiles/projects for other compilers).
The thing about CMake is that the Visual Studio projects it generates aren't quite normal. They look like regular Visual Studio projects but there are various oddities, like if you ran CMake's configure tool to generate a release build, the generated Visual Studio project is incapable of creating a Debug build (despite listing both Debug and Release targets in the configurations menu). You have to rerun the configure tool and create separate project files for the Debug build. It seems that the project files it generates, though superficially Visual Studio projects, somehow actually rely on CMAKE under the hood to implement all the build logic, rather than relying on the native tool (Visual Studio in this case).
Bakefile, on the other hand, generates real plain vanilla Visual Studio projects that have no other dependencies and which use no behind the scenes hanky-panky. And on Linux they generate regular autotools/Makefiles stuff.
I generally stick to released versions rather than overnight development products. But if I were tempted in that direction, again the traditional cvs system is familar to most and would be the least troublesome method of presentation.
Too late for that. We switched to SVN quite some time ago. I think I can speak for the other developers when I say that we don't regret it. If git will be able to support the development practices that we need to use to do the heavy refactoring that still needs to be completed on the inkscape code base without much additional complexity on any supported platform, it will be a huge win and I don't foresee regret there either.
I think the truly disconnected and distributed model used by git, monotone, mercurial, or darcs is the way to go for the future. From what I understand one key thing they all offer is the ability to seamlessly create branches *locally*, so anyone is free to create a variety of branches of their own and do experiments without needing any write permissions on the official repository. That plus the ability to make local commits even when you're offline at a coffee shop or on an airplane just sounds wonderful. So I'm all for the move.
I think Carl Worth did a pretty good job at selling Git when he moved Cairo over to git from CVS: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/cairo/2006-February/006255.html
--bb