Nice job Freeland! You're an ant-master! On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Freeland Abbott <fabb...@google.com>wrote:
> Well, if I've saved "serious time" by 10:30am, I'm happy indeed. > I've got another depends-on-your-hardware-but-I-saw-4min-saving (for > work-to-do rebuild of samples, so no gain if you use buildonly) out to scott > already, though it's small enough that anyone who wants to review at > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/36802/show can help Scott do real work > instead of ant file review. > > > > 2009/6/11 Joel Webber <j...@google.com> > > w00t indeed. This just saved me serious time this morning already. >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Scott Blum <sco...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> w00t!! >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Freeland Abbott <fabb...@google.com>wrote: >>> >>>> As of r5537, my no-change "ant build" takes 1:55 instead of 19:43, and >>>> there's still some easy work to do, albeit with obviously diminishing >>>> returns >>>> >>>> Most of that difference is due to a rather annoying timestamp >>>> consideration with directory entries in jars; my patch introduces a new Ant >>>> task, LatestTimeJar, to resolve it. >>>> >>>> The issue is---was---that in general, we jar both >>>> .../src/com/google/gwt/.../Foo.java and also >>>> build/out/.../com/google/gwt/.../Foo.class. The jar file will have one >>>> directory entry for "com/", the existence of which is actually important to >>>> GWT as Scott pointed out in the first-round review comments. But the two >>>> directories have different touch dates, and we archived the first-named, >>>> which was usually from .../src/..., with an "old" date by svn. The second >>>> build would therefore notice that the *second* instance of "com/" was >>>> newer than the archived "com/", and therefore jar it again. (Because we >>>> did >>>> "updates," the entry would have been new after that second cycle. In some >>>> cases, notably the servet API classes in alldeps.jar, we had up to four >>>> such >>>> duplicates, though.) Worse, everything downstream of that error also had >>>> to >>>> be redone... including the samples. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
