[gwt-contrib] Re: ant improvements, round 1
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.comwrote: 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: ant improvements, round 1
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.comwrote: 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: ant improvements, round 1
Nice job Freeland! You're an ant-master! On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Freeland Abbott fabb...@google.comwrote: 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.comwrote: 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: ant improvements, round 1
Thanks... I think. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Rajeev Dayal rda...@google.com wrote: Nice job Freeland! You're an ant-master! On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Freeland Abbott fabb...@google.comwrote: 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.comwrote: 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[gwt-contrib] Re: ant improvements, round 1
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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
