Am 15.01.2016 um 14:41 schrieb Peter Kümmel <syntheti...@gmx.net>: > > > > Am 14.01.2016 um 23:32 schrieb Uwe Stöhr: >> Am 14.01.2016 um 21:22 schrieb Georg Baum: >> >>>> So I still think that creating a new git branch and copying the files >>>> from the tar there is the quickest and also safest way - no need to >>>> fiddle around with any path. >>> >>> Here I strongly disagree. By doing this, you have no control over the >>> information from the previous builds that is in the cmake cache. >>> Therefore it is never sure whether such a build is reproducible (e.g. if >>> you re-used the directory to build from git again). >> >> I don't understand. It is up to me to decide which branch becomes >> active. All other branches and their files are invisible for the >> compiler and also for CMake. As I understood it CMake is only necessary >> to tell the compiler where and in which order to take the files from. I >> built this way now for about 2 years. Why do I need to take care of the >> CMake cache? From where do you know that building from a git folder is >> not reproducible? If that would be the case how can people work with git >> in their jobs? > > I also don't see a problem to build from a clean git repository. > Only thing I would ensure is to "sit" on tagged release.
I think there is some misunderstanding here. You’re not talking of the same use pattern of git. I think it should go like this: The git-repository checkout is the source directory. The build directory should always be outside the source directory. A clean build starts with removing the build directory completely. To automate builds and or make builds reproducible the use of build scripts is good practice. There the build directory cleanup and passing of locally adapted parameter values can be placed. My 2 cents. Stephan > >> >>> IMO, we should not release any binary that was built in this way. >> >> I don't like your 100% "basta" statements. Building under Win is >> obviously a bit different than on Unix. Have you ever tried TortoiseGit >> or another Git client under Windows? >> >> > Instead we should find a different solution which ensures a 100% >> > reproducible build, like we do have for all other platforms. >> >> How do you control the people? Why do you think I don't care to get a >> correct build? When I make a mistake there I will be flooded by user >> complaints. >> >> regards Uwe
