HI Just made it simpler for everyone interested, have a look at https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/branches/capstone2013/student_work
it contains all output from the project. have fun. rgds jan i: Ps. dont hesitate to ask if you have questions. On 24 November 2014 at 12:23, jan i <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 24 November 2014 at 00:56, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Oh my. I wasn't around when that project was created. Is there any >> update on what was accomplished? It ended before Summer 2014, yes? >> > yes it did, sadly enough the students did not really put effort into it. > Steve Hathaway helped me a lot onsite. > > I have the same itch, although I don’t think the builds should require >> Microsoft Project files. There are too many problems with those, along >> with other bloat. (One problem is how each release of the VS IDE updates >> them, so having those be committed to the code base screws things up for >> someone using older versions.) >> > We ended having a pretty good converting tool for the simple function > groups, so in general this was more a proof of concept, than an actual > implementation. > > I learned enough to verify, that with a couple of students one more > semester we could have a microsoft visual studio solution running. > > The project files dont need to be svn, we have tested to have Cmake > generator files, that can make both makefiles and project files. > > The whole subject was discussed earlier, and it was clearly stated that we > do not want an extra build system, on top of the unfinished ones we already > have, that is the main reason why the results never went further than the > wiki, the branch, and our google drive. > > > >> >> But I think clean builds using Microsoft tooling is a great idea, and it >> would be great if it did not require a POSIX shim and the friction that >> creates for what developers on the Windows platform are taught, know, and >> have free tools for. It could be all right to use a POSIX shim by those >> whose toolcraft favors it, but it should not be required. >> > I do too....goal was to get rid of cygwin, and work like a windows > programmer works. > > >> The availability of the Visual Studio 2013 Community Edition can have a >> great impact on this idea, since that now includes ATL, MFC, and much more, >> including built-in git support. >> > yes, and please do not forget that all committers can get the full version > for free together with a bunch of other microsoft tools. > > >> >> A REQUEST: I'd like to see a module that was converted along the lines of >> this project to see if my ideas can also be applied to it. >> > you might want to check the capstone branch, some of the latest stuff > should be in there, otherwise I can privately share my google drive with > you. > > Steve and I discussed continuing the project with this capstone semester, > but due to a lot of problems with their registration, and the somewhat > personal discussions on this and other AOO lists, I decided to take a > break. > > I still hope we can make a future project with capstone, because I at > least, find this to be a cornerstone in acquiring and keeping new > developers. Who knows in the future I might find others who share my point > of view. > > rgds > jan i. > > >> - Dennis >> >> THINKING OUT LOUD >> >> I see there are several more pages on the wiki about this project, so my >> hypothesis may already be refuted. Here it is, for now: >> >> There is a way of structuring a project repository so that the build >> ephemera and even the creation of VS Solutions/Projects is in directories >> that are not part of the shared code. I saw this done beautifully in a >> project on GitHub that built with gcc or Clang on Windows. (They needed >> C++11 features and apparently VC++ didn't have enough of those.) >> >> I think the same can be done with VC++ and makefile Projects. The VS IDE >> can still be used, with the benefits that provides, and one can use the >> toolset and Debug builds locally if the repository is structured properly. >> This provides local efficiencies in compile-test-revise, etc., without >> forcing onto others. It should be possible to use a different IDE (Eclipse, >> whatever), since that choice is not bolted into the repository and it can >> be factored in a way to allow that. >> >> I have the impression that it is not understood how well the VS toolset >> can be operated from the command line and scripts, no matter how well that >> is hidden when it is all driven from the IDE. >> >> I agree that dependency management and the ability to have separately >> buildable and testable modules is very important to figure out. That >> should be a feature rather than having to swallow the whole thing as a >> entrance test to AOO development. (I thought CMake could have been used >> that way too and I may be misunderstanding CMake and/or the rationale about >> not using it here. I would avoid it out of preference for factoring builds >> differently. [I don't use #ifdef much either [;<]). >> >> I favor the approach in the project of starting on a module-by-module >> basis and having everything still build completely after each module >> rearrangement. It does mean that CygWin (or the friendlier but less stable >> MSYS2) would need to still be used and the non-Windows CMake-generated >> builds must also not be messed up. >> >> The kind of repository reorganization that allows module separation has >> great appeal, and it is more aligned with how Git-hosted projects tend to >> be more-optimally coordinated. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 02:39 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Unofficial photos ApacheCon EU 2014 >> >> [ ... ] >> Steve Hathaway (see >> >> https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Capstone_2013_Client_Requirements_Document >> ) >> [ ... ] >> >> >> >
