I think that's about what I'm hoping to make "ant build" become. In terms of what's there today, Fred, have you tried the existing top-level "buildonly" target? My complaint with that one is that it doesn't get the .so/.dll files into a usable place, but if you manually drop them into build/lib, I think it's the closest we have today.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Fred Sauer <[email protected]> wrote: > My pain point: > I often want a trunk build of GWT to quickly test a patch. In this case I > only need the GWT build for the current platform whatever that is. I don't > need samples/demos nor do I need/want tests. I don't need a zipped up > distro, just the jars. Even javadocs would be optional. Of course I want all > of that and be able to do incremental builds. > > I imagine something like this: > > 1. ant clean platform-jars > 2. (make a small code change to GWT compiler and/or GWT widgets) > 3. ant platform-jars (fast, incremental build) > > Fred > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Freeland Abbott <[email protected]>wrote: > >> So, I'm looking at our ant files, and trying to unwind several problems... >> but I figure I'll ask what other people have as pet peeves, to see if there >> are other games I should play, too. >> >> Here's what's on my mind right now: >> >> - If you run "ant clean build; ant build", the second build should be >> zero work. It's not, and in particular it painfully builds samples twice. >> It shouldn't. >> - Right now, tests require a staging directory, which implies >> requiring a full distro kit including samples. That's unnecessary; tests >> should require build, but not much more. >> - Related to that, too much depends on the semi-recursive -do, >> which is actually a no-op that depends on dist, which pulls too much >> in for >> simple cases. >> - Largely orthogonal, we have checked in files with $ in their names, >> which are supposed to also be usable wtih _ instead. I've got a system >> which is badly allergic to the $'s, which is why this causes me pain, but >> generally it seems this "should" be addressed with alternate classpath >> roots >> anyway, so we can test both the two cases easily. >> >> Does anyone have other pain points to add? >> >> >> What I was thinking of doing is: >> >> - Shoot the top-level -do target, in favor of having subtargets >> directly invoke what they need from subprojects, via <antcall>, and >> setting >> "target" as is done today... so e.g. target "test" can depend target >> "build" >> or "buildonly" and then <antcall> the "test" targets of dev, user, etc. >> explicitly. Since -do would no longer exist, it wouldn't depend on "dist" >> to get the fan-out effects, and fan-out can be more selectively >> controlled. >> - Untangle whatever our double-build is caused by; at first blush, it >> seems to think my directories are out of date relative to the existing jar >> (not the files in them, but the directories themselves). >> - Change the default target to "dist," for back compatibility, since >> that's what build today really does (build depends on -do which depends on >> dist which depends on build in all the subprojects). >> - Twiddle the semantics of "build" to be just building. I haven't >> decided whether that would include building samples (probably; buildonly >> exists to skip that), but it wouldn't assemble the distro archive and then >> unpack it as dist does. >> - Introduce user/test_dollar and user/test_underbar as java-root >> directories with the obvious subset of files from today's user/test, and >> an >> adjustment to the test target one or the other is on classpath, >> controlled I >> think by a system property. >> >> Thoughts on that? >> >> >> > > > -- > Fred Sauer > Developer Advocate > Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway > Mountain View, CA 94043 > [email protected] > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
