Since you're OK with manual updates, I'm happy in principle with having IDE-related files in the repository as long as they are not unreasonably large. But there's something weird going on. Why would special files would be needed for syntax highlighting or Git integration or even integrated debugging? Other editors and IDEs manage these features without special files (I often use these features in Emacs).
So: are you really talking about an alternate build system? I really don't want two build systems around because that will inevitably cause trouble, e.g. when we add new tests to configure.ac that add new config.h macros, for example. I also doubt that generating the testsuite is going to work gracefully. I guess by "CI gate" you mean something preventing checking into the repository until basic tests pass? We haven't implemented anything like that, yet. We expect developers to run "make check" before applying commits. On a normal dev box (such as the 2-year-old laptop I'm typing this on) this takes under a minute. It isn't really practical to expect a dev to do this on multiple OSes, though, so we'd need something more sophisticated if we were to attempt this for Windows. On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 01:55:32AM +0000, Alessandro Pilotti wrote: > Of course I do. :-) > > A CI gate might be very helpful for this purpose as a further step to > keep those files aligned by avoiding regressions IMO but for the time > being we'd perfectly fine with manual updates. > > > On 26/nov/2013, at 03:19, "Ben Pfaff" <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > > You realize that no one else is going to update them, right? > > > >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:03:02AM +0000, Alessandro Pilotti wrote: > >> What if we simply add a folder with the Visual Studio build files to begin > >> with? > >> > >>> On 26/nov/2013, at 01:29, "Ben Pfaff" <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> We're not switching to CMake. If you have something to generate the > >>> XML files you need, we'll check that in. > >>> > >>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:23:37PM +0000, Alessandro Pilotti wrote: > >>>> Visual Studio is the "de facto" IDE for Windows development. It provides > >>>> all the features you'd expect from a modern environment (integrated > >>>> debugger, refactoring tools, Git integration, syntax highlighting and a > >>>> gazillion additional features) and in general it allows to be a few > >>>> orders of magnitude more productive than a text editor and some command > >>>> line tools. > >>>> > >>>> For other scenarios, e.g. Python or other interpreted dynamic languages, > >>>> I'm personally a great fan of simpler editors like Sublime, but I'd > >>>> never even think of working in C/C++/C#/Java/etc without an IDE and > >>>> especially an integrated debugger. > >>>> > >>>> I can assure you that no Windows developer I ever met would ever accept > >>>> to jump back in time 20 years and use vi as her/his main productivity > >>>> tool. :-) If this port is meant to attract more Windows community > >>>> contributors then Visual Studio support is substantially mandatory. > >>>> > >>>> Said that, if in your intentions the project is not meant to be > >>>> developed on Windows but only compiled to produce the binaries, well, > >>>> makefiles are enough. > >>>> > >>>> I suggest to take a tour of other well known cross platform projects and > >>>> see how those manage the Windows builds. You'll see that some of them > >>>> consider Windows as a platform for builds only (basically no > >>>> development), some use CMake to support all the required platforms (Qt5, > >>>> MySQL, FreeRDP come to mind) and some use separate build systems > >>>> (CPython, Apache, just to name a couple). > >>>> > >>>> If you're interested we can record a quick webcast to show how to use > >>>> Visual Studio for Open vSwitch development activities. This might help > >>>> in clarifying some of the statements above. > >>>> > >>>> As a final note, Visual Studio files are just XML files, so generating > >>>> them dynamically is not that complicated if we really have to. > >>>> > >>>> Alessandro > >>>> > >>>>> On 26/nov/2013, at 00:18, "Gurucharan Shetty" <shet...@nicira.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Nov 25, 2013, at 5:05 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> They're the equivalent of makefiles for Visual Studio. Without them > >>>>>> you can't use the Windows-native development tools so while it's not > >>>>>> impossible to work it certainly makes life more difficult. > >>>>> > >>>>> One can still edit the files using a vi editor (or any other simple > >>>>> editor)on windows and do a make. Probably the disadvantage is that you > >>>>> can't use visual studio ide to write code(?). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> What I'm trying to get at is, what are the "solution and related > >>>>>>> projects" good for? The non-Windows world does fine without them, so > >>>>>>> if "make" can work on Windows then why is the result "basically > >>>>>>> useless for any practical development purpose"? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 04:50:40PM -0500, Ethan Jackson wrote: > >>>>>>>> My understanding is that Guru is working on a solution to this > >>>>>>>> problem. What were your thoughts? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ethan > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 08:11:00PM +0000, Alessandro Pilotti wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> We did some testing with autoconf / automake on Windows. Makefiles > >>>>>>>>>> are getting generated correctly although we cannot obviously verify > >>>>>>>>>> the result with a full build since we didn?t port all the patches > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> the master branch yet. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> There?s anyway a huge limitation: it does not generate a Visual > >>>>>>>>>> Studio solution and related projects, which means that it?s > >>>>>>>>>> basically useless for any practical development purpose. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> What are those files good for? > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> dev mailing list > >>>>>>>>> dev@openvswitch.org > >>>>>>>>> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> dev mailing list > >>>>>>> dev@openvswitch.org > >>>>>>> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> dev mailing list > >>>>> dev@openvswitch.org > >>>>> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> dev mailing list > >>>> dev@openvswitch.org > >>>> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev@openvswitch.org > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
