I like the idea that decouples repo and build path. By the way, I noticed there is a lot of .gitignore files in upstream postgres repo so I suspect "make distclean" is not equal to simply deleting the build path.
2016-06-25 23:35 GMT+08:00 Radar Da lei <[email protected]>: > Sounds great! So we can do a completely 'distclean' by simply delete the > files in the build folder. +1 > > Regards, > Radar > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Jiali Yao <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Cool suggestion. Then we can easily compile the result for different > > configuration. > > > > Thanks > > Jiali > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Great points and +1 on the suggestions! > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Roman. > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:38 AM, hong wu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > The current code organization has some building disadvantages for > > > > developers. > > > > > > > > Developers can only compile HAWQ code in HAWQ_HOME which means if we > > > build > > > > HAWQ in another folder, the make process will fail. > > > > > > > > Since the make system of HAWQ is come from Postgres. I also tried > > > building > > > > Postgres in a temporary new build folder and it works. > > > > > > > > This kind of limitation has some disadvantages: > > > > 1. It is not neat to mix building generated files with source code. > > > > 2. We need to type make distclean if we want different configuration > > > > environment. An ideal way for example is to keep a build_opt folder > to > > > hold > > > > release mode build and keep a build_dev folder to hold debug mode. > > > > > > > > Best > > > > xunzhang > > > > > >
