On 10/07/2011 03:51 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
2011/10/7 Marc-André Laverdière:
Wow, I really missed the 'big debate' :)
me too :- )
- I don't think we can expect developers to run a build before each
push,
Yes we absolutely can expect that. it is actually a bare minimum !
rebase, clea
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 21:01 +0300, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> If you are building *on* Windows, use MSVC, is my opinion.
That's my opinion as well.
My concern centers around the expressed notion that, we should start
using C99 features and not worry about a compiler (or compilers) that
don't support
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 18:53 +0300, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> >> - I don't think we can expect developers to run a build
>>> before each push,
> > Yes we absolutely can expect that. it is actually a bare minimum !
Gosh - lets discuss this in person at the conference :-)
Comedic p
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 11:30 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
>> >
>> > Flames about C99 being over ten years old already to /dev/null,
>> > please. Voluntary technical standards that sign
> Assuming that we will try to ditch MSVC in favor of mingw on Windows,
Not MinGW on Windows, but MinGW as cross-compiler from Linux (or from
some other Unix).
If you are building *on* Windows, use MSVC, is my opinion. OOo thinks
differently; they do/did try to support compiling using MinGW on
Wi
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 11:30 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> >
> > Flames about C99 being over ten years old already to /dev/null,
> > please. Voluntary technical standards that significant industry
> > participants choose to mostly ignore ar
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 16:34, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>
> To set-up a buildbot, clone contrib/buildbot and read
> README.tinbuild2. if you have any question on that, please ask me.
>
Thanks Norbert, That doesn't sound like much bandwidth.
I'll speak to the boss on Monday and see about getting the
> Note that with that kind of argument (if Microsoft doesn't 'like' it
> then it is worthless), you'd still be stuck with IE6
Well if Firefox had not existed, or hadn't achieved any
significant market share (on Windows), that might well had been the
case...
(Note that I am not claiming th
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
>
> Flames about C99 being over ten years old already to /dev/null,
> please. Voluntary technical standards that significant industry
> participants choose to mostly ignore are mostly worthless.
'significant industry "particiapnt"' that chose
>> - I don't think we can expect developers to run a build before each
>> push,
>
> Yes we absolutely can expect that. it is actually a bare minimum !
And on multiple platforms? Or at least with a bit of
portability-enforcing options to gcc? Case in point: commit
1fc34c75a8a2356ed03c52ca839a7a
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Noel Grandin wrote:
>
> Following on to this, I suggest that it should not be hard to configure a
> Windows machine with 16G of RAM, and set aside most of that memory as a
> RAM-drive. Then run the Windows build on the RAM-drive. That should speed
> things up.
> I d
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Noel Grandin wrote:
> It seems like Windows builds in particular would benefit from either (a)
> tons and tons of RAM or (b) an SSD.
> Who owns the hardware? Perhaps I (or the company I work for) can contribute
> to the cost of (a) or (b).
It is not clear that that
Following on to this, I suggest that it should not be hard to configure a
Windows machine with 16G of RAM, and set aside
most of that memory as a RAM-drive. Then run the Windows build on the
RAM-drive. That should speed things up.
I do that here for some of my builds, and it makes a massive diff
It seems like Windows builds in particular would benefit from either (a) tons
and tons of RAM or (b) an SSD.
Who owns the hardware? Perhaps I (or the company I work for) can contribute to
the cost of (a) or (b).
Regards, Noel Grandin
Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> 2011/10/7 Marc-André Laverdière :
>
2011/10/7 Marc-André Laverdière :
> Wow, I really missed the 'big debate' :)
[...]
> - I agree that an email to 200 people is not super interesting. I think
> we should run git bisect to try building for every commit until we hit
> one that breaks, or build on each commit.
On linux and Mac we buil
Wow, I really missed the 'big debate' :)
Anyways, here are some things that went on my mind going through the list:
- IIRC, some projects have build farms available... why is it we're not
using theirs to supplement ours?
I see here that GCC is willing to help any free software project:
http://gcc
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:42:52 +0200
Jan Holesovsky wrote:
> On 2011-10-06 at 10:58 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
>
> > Also newcomers (without procmail rules) who finally got their
> > first commit in are scared away from the project, because these
> > mails are telling them they either got i
Hi Bjoern,
On 2011-10-06 at 10:58 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Also newcomers (without procmail rules) who finally got their first
> commit in are scared away from the project, because these mails are
> telling them they either got it wrong (which is what a first commiter
> would sus
Hi Tor,
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:18:24 +0300
Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> The only solutions I see are:
>
> 1) Either we should get some really really bad-ass Windows tinderbox,
> *and* make it use ccache (i.e. investigate whether kendy's port of an
> old ccache version really works correctly, or re-por
Hi Tor, all,
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 09:01:06 +0300
Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> Seriously, is it really that awful if a few tinderboxes are red for
> some days?
Yes, it is. Reasons follow below.
> Some of them are red for weeks.
IMHO we should do something about that too.
> Is just bluntly reverting t
The only solutions I see are:
1) Either we should get some really really bad-ass Windows tinderbox,
*and* make it use ccache (i.e. investigate whether kendy's port of an
old ccache version really works correctly, or re-port a current ccache
to support MSVC).
2) Or, we should have our developers m
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
>> because oox/source/drawingml/customshapepresets.cxx, a 4MB source,
>> made gcc blow-up both on Mac and on Gentoo
>
> The horror! The horror!
>
> Seriously, is it really that awful if a few tinderboxes are red for
> some days?
That parti
> because oox/source/drawingml/customshapepresets.cxx, a 4MB source,
> made gcc blow-up both on Mac and on Gentoo
The horror! The horror!
Seriously, is it really that awful if a few tinderboxes are red for
some days? Some of them are red for weeks. Is just bluntly reverting
the right way to
I reverted
c9f9b6723b40279716b1e34c1441a33e60cceb58.
e36f591dfeb89fded172f4770157bc6cb6dc7454.
because oox/source/drawingml/customshapepresets.cxx, a 4MB source,
made gcc blow-up both on Mac and on Gentoo
The compiler churned on it for 20 minutes or consumming huge amount of
memory ( as in
24 matches
Mail list logo
