koala

[David Faure]

On Sunday 28 April 2002 19:34, Richard Dale wrote:
> On Sunday 28 April 2002 5:00 pm, Bernd Gehrmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 April 2002 09:36, you wrote:
> > > I keep a patch of any manual edits needed for the previous version, and
> > > apply that to the newly generated sources. It would be nice to completely
> > > automate it, but I'm not sure if it's possible (cf kdebindings/kdejava
> > > often fails to build too). Possibly the unedited sources could go in the
> > > cvs under an 'AUTOGENERATED_BINDINGS' tag, so that the manual edits would
> > > be the difference between this and the HEAD branch.
> >
> > You could also commit the patch into cvs. Regenerating the sources could
> > then done with a Makefile target
> >
> > regenerate:
> >         kalyptus something
> >         patch < patch
> >
> > Whenever you change your manual modifications, you can update the patch
> > with
> >
> >   cvs diff > patch
> >   cvs commit patch
> Or a third approach would be to put the unedited sources into a different 
> directory. 
> 
> I did start updating the javasupport part last time you mentioned koala, but 
> I'm afraid I got distracted with something else. The problem is that the 
> names of some of the core api classes have changed, and most of the work is 
> tracking down which new name corresponds to which old name.
> 
> I would certainly like to decide on the definitive way to do this. David Faure 
> also has an opinion on how it should be done, so I'll cc him this mail.

I hate manual edits on generated stuff ;)
So ideally, any "hack" to be done after re-generating should be done by a 
script (or a diff as mentionned above), which can then be part of the rebuilding
process. My idea for that was a separate script to run by hand, but a Makefile
target does the job too. It's just much harder to find, it must be well-documented!

I think ./regenerate is simpler than "make regenerate", because "ls" tells you
this possibility exists.

I am a bit against the idea of a separate cvs branch - they are usually quite
a mess to manage, they would lead to much bloat in the history of the files,
and on kde-cvs....

Just my 0.02 EUR, you're the maintainer ;)

If the edits are so big that they can't be scripted or patched, then obviously
a more manual solution is in order. But for sure I won't let that happen to the
perl bindings (and from reading the C# binding I'm quite sure it doesn't need any
either). Do the java bindings really need _manual_ editing after each regeneration?

-- 
David FAURE, david at mandrakesoft.com, faure at kde.org
http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~david/
Contributing to: http://www.konqueror.org/, http://www.koffice.org/
KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today