Since I'm in the bindings hall of shame, I guess I'm supposed to reply. ;) The twice that I've used it, it was very helpful. The few reviews I've done of Adam's it was much better than what we had before. However, I agree something better could be built. I'm just not sure what better looks like yet. I expect when Adam finishes getting rid of custom bindings code he'll have a better idea. :)
I'm surprised this thread so much attention. -eric On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Apr 29, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: > > It seems to me a better model would be to regenerate the bindings test file > > automatically as part of the build. Then the changes can still be reviewed > > by you, or as part of a diff, but there would be no extra manual steps > > involved. And people making behaviorally transparent changes to codegen > > output would perhaps feel a little less burdened. > > That sounds like a good improvement. I think it would be fine to > regenerate the output as part of the build. However, I think we > should still preserve the ability to run the script along it "test" > mode because that's about three orders of magnitude faster than > performing a build after touching CodeGeneratorJS. > > Alexey (or others who don't like the new tests), do you think this change > would address your concerns? > On Apr 29, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > > What I hear from this conversation is the following: > > 1) A bunch of people who've used the tool saying that they've found it > useful. > 2) A bunch of people who haven't used the tool suggesting improvements. > > This tool impacts the handful of people who work on > CodeGeneratorJS.pm. Everyone else in the project can safely ignore > it. I'm all for improvements, and I invite anyone interested to > either improve the tool or write a new tool that does the job better. > > If everyone has to use the tool for the tool to be useful, then ideally we > want a system where the people who change the bindings frequently mostly buy > into. Here is the list of people with more than 5 all-time commits in the > WebCore/bindings/scripts directory. Ideally I'd like to hear from more of > these what they think would be helpful and not burdensome. > 59 [email protected] > 46 [email protected] > 35 [email protected] > 32 [email protected] > 29 [email protected] > 26 [email protected] > 26 [email protected] > 16 [email protected] > 14 [email protected] > 12 �[email protected] > 10 [email protected] > 8 [email protected] > 7 [email protected] > 7 [email protected] > 6 [email protected] > 6 [email protected] > 6 [email protected] > 6 [email protected] > 6 [email protected] > Here is the command anyone can run to see the full list (assuming you have > an SVN checkout): > $ svn log WebCore/bindings/scripts | grep '|.*@' | sed -e 's/^[^|]* |//g; s/ > | .*$//g;' | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn > The long tail of people who have made only a few bindings changes is rather > large, so I suspect this tool affects more than a handful people, if it > becomes a mandatory part of the process. > Regards, > Maciej > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
