[Gdal-dev] Motion: Adding the SWIG generated files to the SVN
warmerdam at pobox.com
Tue Jan 23 12:19:52 EST 2007
Tamas Szekeres wrote:
> Dear All,
> It seems to me that many of the developers would favour adding the
> SWIG generated files to the SVN repository. Currently for some of the
> bindings the generated files are already inside, but the others like
> C# doesn't have these files version controlled.
> 1. For some of the bindings SWIG generates high number of the files.
> For the C# interface currently the following files should be added:
> Upon modifying the C# interface files (.i) sometimes all of the
> generated files may vary, some of the files might be deleted renamed
> or added. Therefore the maintainability of these files might bring in
> some additional complexity.
I must say I'm surprised at the number of generated files for C#
compared to other interfaces, but I don't see a fundamental problem
with this. Presumably new files are only added or removed occasionally
now that things are stable?
I would also add that generally speaking I think only the "chief
maintainer" for a binding should be commiting updates to the generated
files. Furthermore, it isn't critical that they be updated in SVN
every time a change is made, but it is important that the committed
files always be in good working condition.
> 2. If different people with different swigs generate these files they
> will potentially clobber each other in the repository and even
> generate conflicts. Here is an example taken out of a post in the
> geos-dev list:
> Before applying such changes I would like to know how the folks can
> live with this idea. When I get some positive confirmation I'm ready
> to make it for the SWIG C# binding.
Note that there are already derived csharp files in subversion, they
just haven't been maintained (apparently) and these files are what
goes out in nightly snapshots and releases.
> I would start a vote on this approval with a +0 on my side.
I am +1 on keeping autoconf, libtool, and swig generated files in
I find it hugely frustrating trying to build some projects from
source control when I end up spending the first hour or two of
misery trying to get just the right version of autoconf, automake,
libtool, swig, bison, flex, etc installed. This has contributed to
a disinterest on my part in being a developer for some projects
(such as GEOS). I don't want to drive developers away from GDAL
with to high a bar to participate. I'd add the required versions
of some of these tools varies from project to project.
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
More information about the Gdal-dev