On 4/17/2013 6:12 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
I agree that we should consider a compromise regarding the UI/UX of
auto clobber. I have filed bug 863091.
I would like to say that I view the object directory as a cache of the
output of the build system. Since it's a cache, cache rules apply and
data may disappear at any time. This analogy works well for my
developer workflow - I never put anything not derived from the build
system in my object directory. But, I don't know what other people are
doing. Could the anti-auto-clobberers please explain where this
analogy falls apart for your workflow?
My ctags file are kept in the object directory, as was doxygen output.
The thing that I most hate to lose is the rules for ctags generation,
kept in the object directory as well because it's much less work than
keeping it in the source directory and constantly playing patch merging
and reorganization games. Treating the objdir as a cache implies as a
secondary concern that there is "little" cost to blowing it away--this
is simply not true, as you can see from how many people reacted to
CLOBBER by scripting stuff to get that stuff ignored. The problem I have
with CLOBBER in particular is that it's a system which is optimized for
the build experience of the buildbots, which build several changesets a
day; my workflow has me pull from *-central about once a week or so,
which means that some configure change ends up having the same effect as
a CLOBBER in practice with less pain.
It is not uncommon for people to have multiple objdirs for a single
srcdir. In such situations, it makes sense to keep things that apply to
a single objdir in that objdir.
--
Joshua Cranmer
Thunderbird and DXR developer
Source code archæologist
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
