Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development

Changing build options, should force a rebuild

<< < (8/8)

iw2nhl:
I agree with some ideas of thomas, but only some ;-)!

--- Quote from: thomas on July 19, 2006, 09:55:26 am ---While for me, there are far too many dialog boxes that annoy the hell out of me (things like "the file was created successfully" or "do you really want to rebuild?" make me say "yeah, what else, that's just what I asked for!"), I do see that a novice user might need one or the other of them (maybe).

--- End quote ---
Yes, there are too many dialog boxes and the worst one is about clean/rebuild: for both of them it remebers you that that operation will require a lot of time if the application is big.
Is this message really needed? This is what I think is well known by any developer: building requires time.
While other dialogs may be useful: if I ask to create something, I want to know if it was created or not because of errors. Generally, if no message is shown, you do not know if it is because everything was right or because of a bug in the system or a silent error.


--- Quote from: thomas on July 19, 2006, 09:55:26 am ---Think of the typical installer app (the kind of installer that 100,000 programs use) as a negative example of what I am talking about:

--- End quote ---
Yes, I partially agree: that way of installing is not very good, but always better than a compile required by a lot of applications for Linux (worst than this, when the application requires libraries to be compiled too).


--- Quote from: thomas on July 19, 2006, 09:55:26 am ---People complain that RC3 is delayed and delayed, we are being compared to "Duke Nukem Forever", and we're being told that features should not be added to a RC, but at the same time, new features are asked for every day.

--- End quote ---
About the version I have an idea: why just don't skip the 1.0 version and release something like a 1.5 version?
I say this because we are NOT working on an RC (release candidate): it has changed in GUI, menus, frameworks, plugins and much core code. It has nothing to do with the old 1.0 version.
New code means new version.
You cannot still call the new release: 1.0 version. Give it a new name, please!

mdelfede:
Reading the topic about compiler framework redesign, made with xml files, one for each compiler, I was thinking that it should be possible to put 1 field in xml file for each compiler version telling which options should force a rebuild when changed.
Then, another file should be generated on each build, saving (maybe also in xml...) the options used on last build.
On next build that file could be scanned, compared with 'force build on change' flags in compiler framework xml file and a forced rebuild could be done automatically.
Of course, the rebuild could be done on 'per file basis' when only local options changed, or 'per target basis' when a global option changed.
It would also be possible to put 3 kind of options :
1 - rebuild not needed (for example, for warning levels, ecc...)
2 - rebuild suggested (for example, change in optimizations), which could lead to a box asking for it
3 - rebuild mandatory, which could lead to an automatic forced rebuild.

Having that in xml compiler files, it could be easy mantained and extended with new future compilers and options.

Ciao

Max

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page