Roger Leigh <rle...@codelibre.net> writes: > I'm doing all my work in git using the git mirror anyway,, so I would be > more than happy to use git for the main repository. It's much more > efficient.
Great! > Regarding build2, are there sufficient benefits over the existing autotools > and cmake build to make it worth the cost for supporting three build > systems? Continuous CI would be the major benefit. And I am committing to absorbing the costs by maintaining it (also see below). > Maintaining two with exact feature parity and behaviours is already a > maintenance burden. I think three is too many, and would recommend we > drop one if we are going to support a new one. And I think that would > have to be the autotools build. I would prefer not to make support for build2 conditional on dropping support for autotools (but we can vote on this separately if you would like). As I mentioned above, we are prepared to do all the maintenance. In fact, bared some major restructuring, I don't expect there to be any. In particular, addition/removal/renaming of source code will be picked up automatically. Upon release, the version will need to be changed in one place but I am prepared to handle that as well. > Regarding the CI side, can it integrate with Apache's github repo like we > have already for Travis and AppVeyor? build2 CI is a bit different in that it is "push" rather than "pull". That is, you normally develop something in a branch, then CI it, if all looks good, merge to master and then maybe CI master, for good measure. This is not to say that we can't also trigger it from a post-commit hook or some such. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: c-dev-unsubscr...@xerces.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: c-dev-h...@xerces.apache.org
