On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Zeev Suraski <vsura...@gmail.com> wrote: > You know, you made me go back to Sara's email where she disagreed with me, > only to find she actually was disagreeing with Remi's proposal to track the > generated files for releases in git. That's definitely not a hill to die on > for me :) > Correct. I'm in agreement with you that we DO include the generated files in tarballs (using a standardized version of re2c, or at least, a consistent-per-branch version), but that we do NOT ever check those generated files into git.
> So all in all I think you're right, we agree on the important things: > 1. Remove generated files from git > 2. Keep them in source packages > +1 > What we seem to disagree on is that we should have a narrower list of > acceptable re2c versions determined by configure/makedist. This isn't a > hill to die on for me either, although I think that narrowing it down is > better in terms of our ability to deliver a source package with confidence, > and be sure that everyone who's testing/using it is testing the same thing > (similar to how we do it with bison). Arguably it's more important to be on > the safe wide with makedist than it is with configure. > I think devs should be able to use flexible versions of re2c (and other tools, e.g. bison), BUT that we should declare formally what versions of these build tools will be used on what branches so that those working on features can predictably know what their changes will generate. For example, my builder (which Remi and I both use for 7.2 builds) currently uses debian:jessie (and therefore re2c 0.13.5 and bison 3.0.2). Barring any pressing need, we'll plan to keep them at these versions until 7.2 goes EOL. -Sara -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
