On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 19:00 +0200, Eike Rathke wrote:
> I find submodules a nightmare to handle and the current situation with
> the three we have (though justified because of their optional character)
> is already bad enough, we don't want to scare away new developers..
Right. Personally
Hi,
On Wednesday, 2013-04-10 21:52:20 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> I was not suggesting "git submodules" -- keep everything in one repo, but
> create some ~10 toplevel directories in which you find our current modules.
My bad, I misunderstood. I plead for coining unambiguous terms :-/
* su
Hi Stephan,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 06:44:19PM +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> What is the "half-complete new concept" there, and what is wrong
> with having a module build three libraries?
Well the sw/ madness is special in its own way (see msts post and my reply).
Building multiple targets in
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 07:00:57PM +0200, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi Bjoern,
>
> On Wednesday, 2013-04-10 15:40:29 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
>
> > - our we should introduce "submodules" properly
>
> I find submodules a nightmare to handle and the current situation with
> the three we have (th
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 04:37:51PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 10/04/13 15:40, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> the problem is that the splitting of sw into 3 libraries is essentially
> a hack to get better startup performance; there is not really a clean
> separation there; for starters there
Hi Bjoern,
On Wednesday, 2013-04-10 15:40:29 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> - our we should introduce "submodules" properly
I find submodules a nightmare to handle and the current situation with
the three we have (though justified because of their optional character)
is already bad enough, we
On 04/10/2013 03:40 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 03:05:50PM +0200, Eike Rathke wrote:
It's not only Writer, Calc and Draw do the same with some headers, and
it serves a purpose, for example core or filters are not supposed to
access anything UI or view specific.
That is
On 10/04/13 15:40, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Hi Eike,
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 03:05:50PM +0200, Eike Rathke wrote:
>> It's not only Writer, Calc and Draw do the same with some headers, and
>> it serves a purpose, for example core or filters are not supposed to
>> access anything UI or view sp
> If swui is a proper lib on top of sw, it should either:
> - be a toplevel module on its own
As somebody who ~never touches sw, I find this a good, clean, idea;)
The sw, sd and sc modules are so large anyway, that if they in fact
can be split up into logical sub-parts, those could well be separa
Hi Eike,
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 03:05:50PM +0200, Eike Rathke wrote:
> It's not only Writer, Calc and Draw do the same with some headers, and
> it serves a purpose, for example core or filters are not supposed to
> access anything UI or view specific.
That is right ... and wrong. The separation
Hi Bjoern,
On Wednesday, 2013-04-10 12:59:02 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> > Writer has zero public headers, no code in a different module includes
> > anything from sw/. there is however a distinction between headers in
> > sw/inc used in all 3 "parts" of Writer (sw/source/*) vs. just one o
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:54:07PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 05/04/13 17:54, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> >> - makes the separation between a 'public' header and a module-private one
> >> more explicit
> >
> > Now only if this separation currently wasn't rather confused on its own.
> > E.g.
> >
On 05/04/13 17:54, Lubos Lunak wrote:
>> - makes the separation between a 'public' header and a module-private one
>> more explicit
>
> Now only if this separation currently wasn't rather confused on its own.
> E.g.
> Writer has a number of public and module-private headers, yet I doubt there's
Hi,
Just to clarify upfront: Getting rid of copying the header is a topic as old as
gbuild itself, fdo#61627 just did bring it up again because Michael Meeks asked
about it.
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 05:54:20PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> On Thursday 04 of April 2013, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Yo
On Thursday 04 of April 2013, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ignited by:
>
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61627
It would be nice if you could sum up the reason for all this, because the
bugreport is rather unclear on it. As far as I understand it, the reason for
this change
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 11:38:35AM +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:
> + write up for the mailing list (Bjoern)
> + find out how other big projects:
> Mozilla, linux, etc. do this
We have it for Linux (see post), I had a quick view an Mozilla and couldnt
figure
On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 17:51 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> This is the first option:
>
> Move the headers from $(SRCDIR)/$(MODULE)/inc/$(MODULE) to
> $(SRCDIR)/include/$(MODULE).
I believe we agreed on this one in the ESC vs. the option two :-)
> As you might guess, if we go for this
Hi,
ignited by:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61627
There was a discussion on moving the global headers to one central location.
I am writing this mail mainly to work out the pros and cons of such a move, so
we can carefully evaluate and prepare for impact should we go for that.
18 matches
Mail list logo
