Re: [Lazarus] revision numbers of each SVN tag?
Doug Chamberlin schrieb: What if, in response to a last-minute show stopper bug, the scheduled release was immediately superseded by another one with a higher release number? What would be the harm? Do you really think that anyone likely to use these programs (FPC and Lazarus) would not be sympathetic and understanding about what happened and readily accommodate themselves to the fact that release x.y.z had a 1-day lifespan and that usable releases went from x.y.z to x.y.z+2? Especially if the explanation was readily available? You missed the days when we skipped 1.0.8, right? It was an faq for years: where is version 1.0.8? It's not like we are running out of release numbers or anything... Also, I don't buy the argument that doing this would delay the new release another 4 months. After all, it would be the exact same code being released under the move the tag scenario so no additional delay would be needed. It requires at least another release candidate to get the version number at all placed right (compiler, makefiles, docs, readmes, installers ) and let it check by other people and to test if all defines are still correct. And the more release candidates you do, the more tired builders get, so times spans get longer and longer with every release candidate. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Repository commit statistics. :-)
Alexander Klenin schrieb: On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 22:37, Graeme Geldenhuys graemeg.li...@gmail.com wrote: Patches submitted to Mantis is applied by other users that have read/write access to the repository. So only those read/write users are shown. Yes, properly preserving author info in commits is another thing Git gets right, and Subversion does not. Who needs it? My sat nav can also plan routes for trucks but it is not the reason why I use it. The real name of a submitter goes into the log, the person responsible for the commit is known by subversion. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Repository commit statistics. :-)
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote: The real name of a submitter goes into the log, the person responsible for the commit is known by subversion. So you do the same thing but manually - that git does automatically for you (and makes it an official feature). The bad thing is: if the original patch was made by some who setup git wrongly (which is rather likely for someone using git seldomly, e.g. I enter always a random name and email address when setting up an account on a machine), you don't have a real name of the submitter. Further, I don't add the email address of the submitter to the log on purpose to make life for spammers harder. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] revision numbers of each SVN tag?
Vincent Snijders schrieb: 2009/4/15, Graeme Geldenhuys graemeg.li...@gmail.com: 2009/4/15 Flávio Etrusco flavio.etru...@gmail.com: As I said previously (and was completely ignored ;-), with SVN one can rely on repository revisions. And if people don't like that, they can use a series of pre tags. And probably a pre branch. Brilliant idea. Create a pre-0.9.26 branch (or tag yuck) and start the release process. 2-4 months later if anything is broken, merge and patch that branch at will. Test again and if all is well, then create a lazarus_0.9.26 tag (never to be touched because it's a released version). How difficult is that??? Logically, Flávio's example makes a lot more sense that how it is currently done with moving tags. To me it feels bad, that in your proposal a release is *always* build from a branch and not from a tag. In 1.0.x/cvs times fpc was built from branches and it was a mess, even using locking :) ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] revision numbers of each SVN tag?
Alexander Klenin schrieb: On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 00:02, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote: Very difficult. If a release is created from a branch, nobody can ensure that all release builders built the release candidate from exactly the same revision, if they don't, things might be broken when the final release should be built. Why not tag it x.y.z-pre1 then, and if all went well, additionally tag the same revision as x.y.z, otherwise create x.y.z-pre2 etc.? What if you realize after x.y.z has been tagged, built and uploaded that it has a security hole as it happend with fpc? At cvs times we did this for fpc and we had to lock the branch to prevent commits (btw: can git lock branches ;)?) Git (and Subversion too) can, in principle, lock branches using pre-commit hook. Subversion has a native lock command ;) One can override it, but this is behaving really bad and I don't expect anybody to do so. However, note that in git the whole problem does not exist, since in the normal workflow nobody except release manager can commit to release branch anyway. So the release manager needs to run his own git repository instead of having the release tag in the central, fast and reliable repository? The sad thing about this workflow is anyways, that no release manager can test all patches because he lacks the appropriate machines so he needs to merge patches blindly. Also, it you _do_ move a tag in git, everybody updating from your repository will get a big fat warning ;-) This is fine, but sometimes moving a tag is needed. Period. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] revision numbers of each SVN tag?
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote: start the release process. 2-4 months later if anything is broken, merge and patch that branch at will. Test again Did you ever working on testing a lazarus or fpc release? Do you mean... have I tested a release candidate when it was announced. It so, then the answer is yes. The answer is no, you never saw the things behind the scenes. Prohibit all read/write access developers from writing to tags. pre- branches will work perfectly and once all release builders are happy, THEN ONLY create a tag. The last time: everybody was happy, FPC 2.2.4 was uploaded and a day before it was announce, a serious *SECURITY HOLE* was detected, so we decided to bite the bullet and decided to fix, rebuild and move the tag. Now I stop it, you don't get it. But I see, you would have skipped 2.2.4, started over again with 2.2.6-rc1 and delayed the release of a new fpc version another 4 months ... ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] revision numbers of each SVN tag?
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Vincent Snijders vincent.snijd...@gmail.com Another school says that you need to build releases from a tagged version. Those learners should go back to school! :-) No. It's stupid to tag after a release is built or even worse, build from a branch. This makes it very hard to ensure that everybody uses the same revision to do its builds (e.g. FPC releases are build by probably almost 10 different people). It rarely happens that a release must be rebuilt but in this case the tag is simply moved by merging a certain revision. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Large program size - 1.8 MB for empty GUI project (uses clause in initialization vs implementation?)
Alexey S. Smirnov schrieb:
Martin Friebe пишет:
Is this documented somewhere? I can't follow the logic anyway, the scope
how much my code uses of another unit can not be predicted, simply by
where I include the other code?
Actually, I do believe I have seen examples where code form units used
in the interface was successfully smart-linked.
However there is a differentiation what can be smart linked and what
not. If a class has RTTI information, then methods from it can not be
removed by smart-linking. Classes with RTTI (afaik) are either included
as a whole or not at all. (And that make sense, because RTTI allows to
access any method by finding it from a resource or literal string; which
are both not parsed by the compiler, and therefore not determinable)
Best Regards
Martin
May the problem will become understandable, if we will do a little
experiment. So. Let's test the Interface/Implementation Uses sections of
/lazarus/lcl/graphics.pp. This section for Lazarus 0.9.26 was that:
|interface
uses
SysUtils, Math, Types, Classes, Contnrs, FPCAdds,
FileUtil,
FPImgCmn, FPImage, FPCanvas,
FPReadPNG, FPWritePNG, PNGComn, // png support
FPReadBMP, FPWriteBMP, // bmp support
FPReadPNM, FPWritePNM, // png support
FPReadJpeg, FPWriteJpeg, // jpg support
IntfGraphics,
AvgLvlTree,
LCLStrConsts, LCLType, LCLProc, LMessages, LCLIntf, LResources,
LCLResCache,
GraphType, IcnsTypes, GraphMath, InterfaceBase, WSReferences;|
|
implementation
uses
SyncObjs;|
It was cleanup by me and now looks like that:
|Interface
uses
SysUtils, Types, Classes,
FPImgCmn, FPImage, FPCanvas,
FPReadJpeg,FPWriteJpeg, // jpg support
IntfGraphics, AvgLvlTree,
LCLType, LMessages, LResources,LCLResCache,
GraphType, IcnsTypes, GraphMath, InterfaceBase, WSReferences;|
|implementation
uses
{FPReadPNG,} FPWritePNG,PNGComn, // png support
{FPReadBMP,} FPWriteBMP, // bmp support
FPReadPNM, FPWritePNM, // png support
LCLStrConsts,LCLProc,LCLIntf,
FileUtil, FPCAdds, Math,
SyncObjs;
|So, previously we have 33 Units mentioned in Interface section and 1 in
Implementation section. After cleanup we have 19 Units in Interface
section and 12 in Implementation. 3 Units from Interface section was
completely removed. ;)
Both Lazarus and all connected apps and projects are working fine with
this cleanup. And if you do the same thing - you will see that that
size of Lazarus will be 15-20 KB less. May be - because of such
optimization, may be - because of removing unused units from *Interface*
section
This could be simply the influence of a different memory layout of the exe.
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org
http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Easiest way to case strings
Marco van de Voort schrieb: And string-case for my feeling belongs in neither. It is just about racking up bullet lists in language wars. Well, there is another important design principle. It is sometimes called orthogonality -- it means that existing language features can be combined in any way, with as little limitation as possible. Yes. But since this is not a simple type, but a complex type, it goes to a different class. If that is your argument, make sure it works for arrays, records, classes, interfaces and the other complex types too. Actually, case is not defined for all types but for all ordinal types ;) ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Easiest way to case strings
Alexander Klenin schrieb: On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 07:03, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote: Well, you can nearly impossibly miss the sliding slope there. First just strings, then hashing to speed it up, then wildcards, then demand for regex etc. This is generic argument applicable to any language feature. Sliding slopes are everywhere, so the safest course of action is not to move at all. This is what I am ranting about, excessive conservatism leading to a stagnation. You can rant about it if we reject a patch adding case with strings ;) I'am quite sure, a good patch (clear definition of the scope, support for all string types, clear definition how the strings are interpreted, tests) to implement it won't be rejected. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Easiest way to case strings
Alexander Klenin schrieb: On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 22:40, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote: Alexander Klenin schrieb: You can rant about it if we reject a patch adding case with strings ;) I'am quite sure, a good patch (clear definition of the scope, support for all string types, clear definition how the strings are interpreted, tests) to implement it won't be rejected. That's refreshing, thanks ;-) From other answers I've got a feeling that such a patch would be rejected in principle. Well, the thumb rule is simple: the people who code decide ;) ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Wiki pages suggestion - feature comparison
Gerard N/A schrieb: Hi Graeme, This is not to start a flame war, but would you care to explain: * Lazarus has much better Packages than Delphi's dumb packages. I'd like to port a Delphi app wich uses package based plugins and as far as I know there is no way I can do that with FPC/Lazarus? Indeed, because using packages as a plugin system is abusing packages: packages have no well defined and stable abi being usable from any language thus they are not the right choose for a good plugin system. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Wiki pages suggestion - feature comparison
Bee schrieb: Indeed, because using packages as a plugin system is abusing packages: packages have no well defined and stable abi being usable from any language thus they are not the right choose for a good plugin system. Maybe for the start we could ignore accessibility factor from other languages. To me, having package that can be used as plugin system (as in Delphi) for my own application is more than enough. I don't care about other languages, because I speak Pascal. If someone else would like to make a plugin for my application, then s/he have to write it in Pascal. Well, he would also need exactly the same version of the compiler, rtl, fcl and lcl you're using. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] TAChart child/parent control integration: request for review
How did you solve the problem of MQ with win32 line endings? ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] TAChart child/parent control integration: request for review
Alexander Klenin schrieb: By the way, Mercurial mirror seems to be stuck again since r18773. What is the problem with it? Here it is at 18780? ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] TAChart child/parent control integration: request for review
Alexander Klenin schrieb: On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 01:09, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote: How did you solve the problem of MQ with win32 line endings? I did not :-( I resorted to manually converting files back and forth. It is not hard, but tedious. So we cannot recommend this really to people :( ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] TAChart child/parent control integration: request for review
Alexander Klenin schrieb: On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 02:23, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote: Alexander Klenin schrieb: By the way, Mercurial mirror seems to be stuck again since r18773. What is the problem with it? Here it is at 18780? Works for me now, too. What is the update interval? It seems some commits appear immediately, while others lags for few minutes to an hour. Normally every 5 min, if some update doesn't break python on the machine hosting it as it happened recently. On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 02:28, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote: Alexander Klenin schrieb: I resorted to manually converting files back and forth. It is not hard, but tedious. So we cannot recommend this really to people :( Actually, I think we still can. The DVCS model itself is so powerful It should first solve the awkwardness of line ending problem, it feels so rcs/cvs like. that I will probably use Mercurial for Lazarus even though I can now commit to svn directly and even despite all the warts of Mercurial's interface. See e.g. a comment about patch management I made in issue 13214. Another important thing for me is speed -- just to view a diff A lot of my diffs were full diffs when trying hg for a small project because of the line ending issue so the fast diffs got useless ;) ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] TAChart child/parent control integration: request for review
Alexander Klenin schrieb: On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 03:17, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote: On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 02:28, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote: Actually, I think we still can. The DVCS model itself is so powerful It should first solve the awkwardness of line ending problem, it feels so rcs/cvs like. Well, the problem for me is actually from trying to use both svn and hg at once. So if one either: 1) Uses only svn 2) Uses only hg I don't see how using only hg should solve this? If someone pushs a commit with mixed/wrong line feeds there is no way to fix this automatically as far as I can see? I must admit, I work often on a samba share with a windows editor and commit from unix (e.g. on my arm), but with subversion, this works perfectly. 3) Uses both, but without svn:eol-style=native property then all is well. Recently I even suggested to drop svn:eol-style, but apparently it is important for some Windows users. How should it work? The files end up with mixed line feeds or even worse a full diff because a windows editor might add \r to all line feeds? Another important thing for me is speed -- just to view a diff A lot of my diffs were full diffs when trying hg for a small project because of the line ending issue so the fast diffs got useless ;) Do you know you can fix up commits in DVCS as long as nobody pulled your changes yet? (And even after that, but at a risk of confusing others). What do you mean with fix up? I must admit, however, that the interface for doing that in Mecrurial is bad -- it is much better in git. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Mercurial mirror not updating
Alexander Klenin schrieb: Since SVN r18698, about 35 hours ago. Fixed. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Not sure if the Laz Devs have seen this...
Michael Van Canneyt schrieb: The real reason I keep my eye on git is that Subversion is a real pain if you have a lot of branches. Tracking all revisions of a file accross branches (something we do a lot at work) is incredibly slow. The subversion graph takes meanwhile a full 5 minutes to build up. How long does it take for you on FPC/Lazarus? I get revision graphs instantly for FPC/Lazarus with TortoiceSVN 1.5.7. - Do you have the latest TortoiseSVN installed? - Did you once update your log cache so that it contains really all items? ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Not sure if the Laz Devs have seen this...
I used git and mercurial at work for small projects to test things a little bit and both are a real pain compared with svn and I saw no increased productivity for small projects and I cannot imagine how this should be different for fpc or lazarus. - line ending conversion is at the same poor level as cvs: you often end with full diffs by accident when working on different systems. Ok, I admit editing files on a unix system through a samba share with a windows editor is uncommon but I often do it and it breaks horrible with git and hg. - no blocking of revisions to merge: svnmerge has a nice feature which allows to block revisions to be merged to a branch. This is neither possible with git nor with hg as far as I can see and at least fpc uses it heavily. - I often forgot a hg up after an hg push/hg pull and ended with files full of conflicts due to this. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Mercurial mirror is down?
Alexander Klenin schrieb: http://florianklaempfl.de:8000/lazarustrunk returns 404 error to me. Fixed. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Mercurial patches
Alexander Klenin schrieb: On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 01:38, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote: Alexander Klenin schrieb: Just as a side note: http://florianklaempfl.de:8000/lazarustrunk/ is a mercurial mirror of lazarus. It might help you to maintain your patches. Mercurial works fine on windows as well and isn't a posix/unix centric hack as git is. Ok, I installed Mercurial and used it to generated a series of patches (to Object Inspector). Let us see how it goes. I guess what you need are the mercurial queues. Let us know how things work. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Mercurial patches
Alexander Klenin schrieb: On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 19:04, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote: Alexander Klenin schrieb: Ok, I installed Mercurial and used it to generated a series of patches (to Object Inspector). Let us see how it goes. I guess what you need are the mercurial queues. Let us know how things work. Sorry if I was unclear -- I already did this, so it is now your turn to see how things work ;-) I was only unsure if you use the patch queue feature provided by mercurial :) ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Mercurial patches
Florian Klaempfl schrieb: Alexander Klenin schrieb: On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 19:04, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote: Alexander Klenin schrieb: Ok, I installed Mercurial and used it to generated a series of patches (to Object Inspector). Let us see how it goes. I guess what you need are the mercurial queues. Let us know how things work. Sorry if I was unclear -- I already did this, so it is now your turn to see how things work ;-) I was only unsure if you use the patch queue feature provided by mercurial :) Oh, and as another note: http://florianklaempfl.de:8000/fpctrunk contains an mercurial mirror of fpc trunk ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] TAChart: double-buffering (issue 0012377) questions
Alexander Klenin schrieb:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 11:46, Alexander Klenin kle...@gmail.com wrote:
So this question remains. Or should I protect double-buffering with
{$IFDEF WIN32}?
Since noone is commenting, I assume my patch is ok ;-)
(http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=12377)
Can someone review/apply it? It is again holding further TAChart work.
Just as a side note: http://florianklaempfl.de:8000/lazarustrunk/ is a
mercurial mirror of lazarus. It might help you to maintain your patches.
Mercurial works fine on windows as well and isn't a posix/unix centric
hack as git is.
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org
http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] TAChart: Request to review/apply patch 12758
Luiz Americo Pereira Camara schrieb: Florian Klaempfl escreveu: Alexander Klenin schrieb: On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:39, Paul Ishenin i...@kmiac.ru wrote: Same for Alexander Klenin - if you need to update TAChart very often then ask about write access to svn/lazarus/trunk/components/tachart Yes, it can be a workaround for my particular case, so whom should I ask? For FPC ask me ; It would be helpful having svn write access to fpc sqlite directory. Is there any specific rules? Of fcl-db? Ask Joost if it's ok then I'll add you. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] TAChart: Request to review/apply patch 12758
Alexander Klenin schrieb: On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:39, Paul Ishenin i...@kmiac.ru wrote: Same for Alexander Klenin - if you need to update TAChart very often then ask about write access to svn/lazarus/trunk/components/tachart Yes, it can be a workaround for my particular case, so whom should I ask? For FPC ask me ;) ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] TAChart: Request to review/apply patch 12758
Alexander Klenin schrieb: See http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=12758 Sorry to bother Daruis (and everyone else) again, but this patch is holding my further work on TAChart. Such are the problems of using centralized version control ;-) I really wonder how a DVCS would solve this or what would be different? You just apply it to your local working copy and you've it in your builds? ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] TAChart: Request to review/apply patch 12758
Alexander Klenin schrieb: I really wonder how a DVCS would solve this or what would be different? You just apply it to your local working copy and you've it in your builds? Yes. The most important difference in this case is that DVCS would preserve local history. This is similar to every developer having his own branch in SVN (or even arbitrary number of local branches), with merges being almost as trivial as SVN's commits. I.e. my specific problem can be solved in SVN by creating a branch of TAChart component and giving me commit access to it, but then similar branch should be created for my patches to DBGrid, and yet another one for patches to SynEdit (both stalled for about a month now), etc. Obviously, this is not a scalable solution for many developers ;-) But isn't the problem that the patches don't get into the central repository? Though I've write access to the fpc repository ;) I've also several local branches (actually plain copies of my fpc checkout) with some changes in it. But if it's not feasible for you, you can still use git-svn, no? BTW: An fpc/lazarus git repository would be really no fun: due to the flaky connection a git clone of a converted repository is from svn.freepascal.org basically not possible, at least not for me from germany. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] TAChart: Request to review/apply patch 12758
Alexander Klenin schrieb: Obviously, this is not a scalable solution for many developers ;-) I forget to mention: how does a DVCS scale better in this regard for small and medium sized projects (100 developers)? As long as you don't get rejected commits due to two commits by two people at the same time? ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] TAChart: Request to review/apply patch 12758
Alexander Klenin schrieb: On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 20:16, Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Klenin schrieb: I.e. my specific problem can be solved in SVN by creating a branch of TAChart component and giving me commit access to it, but then similar branch should be created for my patches to DBGrid, and yet another one for patches to SynEdit (both stalled for about a month now), etc. Obviously, this is not a scalable solution for many developers ;-) But isn't the problem that the patches don't get into the central repository? They will get there eventually. The key thing is that patches can be 'batched' for review/application and not spoon-fed one by one. This can be done with an svn branch as well? I'am rather sure the lazarus people give you write access to a branch if you ask. And this has a real advantage: if you just commit your changes to your local repository, the changes get lost if you disappear and nobody did pull them yet (this is also why we recommend to attach patches to bug reports, they won't get lost this way), the patches are lost. If they are in a svn branch, they aren't lost. Look at what is going on at kernel.org -- a feature can be implemented as a series of 10 or even 100 patches -- imagine how much time it would take to submit and review each patch sequentially. The point about kernel.org is that they have dedicated reviewers. If lazarus has dedicated reviewers/merger then this could be done as well. The actual merge command of a branch in svn is a non brainer as well. BTW: An fpc/lazarus git repository would be really no fun: due to the flaky connection a git clone of a converted repository is from svn.freepascal.org basically not possible, at least not for me from germany. Sorry, I can not parse this sentence. For testing purposes, I converted the fpc repository to git. However, due to the slow and unreliable connection of our vc server to my place, I was not able to clone this repository to my machine at home. A broken svn checkout can be continued, a git clone apparently not. how does a DVCS scale better in this regard for small and medium sized projects (100 developers)? DVCS does not require any central administration to create branches for every developer/feature. It requires it. Or how would you create releases then? The features must go into this repository and if noone does so, the feature is pretty useless as well. It also does not require network connection for doing commits, which is important to some contries/regions where Internet is still not cheap or reliable enough. See above :) ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Cocoa bindings
Mac Programmer schrieb: Maybe Florian could elaborate a bit on where the NDA issues lie. With developing a compiler, the run-time, the apps themselves? It seems that this is not the problem anymore however, testing the port doesn't seem to be possible so far. Anyways, I wonder if it is even allowed/possible to run/publish (L)GPL software on the iPhone. Apple has to accept the (L)GPL to propagate the software through iTunes. However, the (L)GPL prohibits means to prevent the user to install modified version of the software. Sure it's a controlled environment. Welcome to the 21st century. Many of us develop software for organizations with extreme restrictions on what users can do with their computers. Apple's review process seems fairly tame by comparison. Compared to whom? Windows Mobile? Linux? I was just seeing if anyone else was interested in joining the party. http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/08/12/05/300m.app.store.downloads/ It's not like we're getting married to the iPhone apps we develop. I think the idea is that you spend maybe a month doing it, then you submit it and wait and see if anyone likes it. Apple is assuming all of the marketing, credit card processing, currency exchange, hosting, etc. as well as a lot of responsibility that you don't have to worry about. For that they take 30% and transmit the other 70% into your bank account. First, you pay $99/year to be able to develop applications for the iPhone/iPod. But if this is no problem, maybe we should change the license of FPC ;) You can also post free apps and Apple assumes the cost of distributing those for free. ... and if Apple doesn't like your application, they kick it, see the PodCaster case. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Cocoa bindings
Mac Programmer schrieb: It appears as though Felipe has provided a complete set of bindings for doing Cocoa development. Is it possible to cross-compile against these to create an app for the iPhone and iPod Touch? I don't believe the version of OS X on those devices includes the Carbon framework, so it'll have to be Cocoa. It would seem like this is a burgeoning development area that's too big to ignore: Afaik there are still NDA issues. http://legacy.macnn.com/articles/08/12/04/iphone.overtakes.win.mo/ http://blogs.oreilly.com/iphone/2008/11/turning-ideas-into-application.html I don't think that the iphone is a threat to WM. It is a treat to Nokia or Motorola which produce mobiles for people who don't install applications on their phone. Or does anybody expect any serius application development for the iphone as long as apple controls if you are allowed(!) to distribute your application or not? ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] [joke] Explanation about the Lazarus logo
Damien Gerard schrieb: I can explain you at least part of the lazarus logo: I like cats and especially cheetahs (though they aren't common in Germany ;)) so I have choosen the cheetah as FPC logo. http://cdn.ugoto.com/pictures/the_end_of_the_chase-53b.jpg Funny picture :) Sorry I found it funny :) -- Damien Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] La raison de la bouffe est toujours la meilleure. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] A new competitor to Lazarus and Free Pascal
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just use valgrind/kcachegrind: http://kcachegrind.sourceforge.net/html/pics/KcgShot3Large.gif ? That looks a lot more complicated and difficult to understand than the REALBasic image. The bottom left rectangle looks almost like the CPU circuitry under a microscope. :-) And I have no clue what that part actually represents. Better http://kcachegrind.sourceforge.net/html/Shot1Large.html ? And even thought FPC and Lazarus has support for 'gprof', I don't know of a single developer that managed to get it working under Linux. I tried numerous times before and searching my mailing list archive of 3 years I can see numerous other developers also being unsuccessful. I always get a blank output file. :-( Because everybody is using valgrind. I had no need to use gprof for years because valgrind is much better. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] A new competitor to Lazarus and Free Pascal
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Brad Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seconded! I discovered valgrind/kcachegrind only 3 weeks ago and it's fabulous! If you are interested at all in profiling your application then valgrind --tool=callgrind Can you point me to a wiki page or document that explain how to use it with FPC under Linux? http://lazarusroad.blogspot.com/2007/09/using-valgrind-to-profile-fpc.html Though fpc -h | grep valgrind shows everything one needs to know. Or if you can email a short decription (steps) in how to get started using FPC? I would be very interested in profiling our product and tiOPF project. Regards, - Graeme - ___ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/ ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] A new competitor to Lazarus and Free Pascal
Florian Klaempfl schrieb: And even thought FPC and Lazarus has support for 'gprof', I don't know of a single developer that managed to get it working under Linux. I tried numerous times before and searching my mailing list archive of 3 years I can see numerous other developers also being unsuccessful. I always get a blank output file. :-( Because everybody is using valgrind. I had no need to use gprof for years because valgrind is much better. BTW: Just tried gprof under linux, works as described in the manual. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] A new competitor to Lazarus and Free Pascal
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:36 PM, David Pethes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can try OProfile http://oprofile.sourceforge.net/about/ too; no extra support in fpc needed, just compile your app with debug info enabled. Thanks. It's amazing. A year ago, when I wanted to do profiling of my FPC apps, I couldn't find anything that works. Now I have an abundant choice of profiling tools. :-) Maybe you should have asked :) gprof works on linux for 10 years (on windows it is hairy) and valgrind support is also since 2.0 in FPC. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Forums on www.lazarus.freepascal.org is virtually unusable
Maybe Michael H. can find out why it's slow and then we can look for solutions how to improve it for example by moving part of the site to another machine. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] using two versions of RTL from lazarus
Henry Vermaak schrieb: How can I use lazarus to switch between those two? easiest is probably to install the ppu files to different locations, then invent a custom define and add it to your fpc.cfg to switch between different versions (where the -Fu paths are defined). you don't really need to do this if you are just worried about debug info, since you can strip the debug info afterwards. This is not completetly true, when debugging it's also better to turn the optimizer off to get better results. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] SubVersion vs Git
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: On 11/5/08, Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Git for our company repositories. In SubVersion, branching is like an afterthought. Manually having to track merges to a branch (though apparently there was been some work towards this), etc... This is not true. svnmerge works very well for years for FPC. I have never heard of svnmerge. It's not on my Ubuntu system either, and I have svn installed - so I gather it's not a standard SubVersion tool. # svnmerge The program 'svnmerge' is currently not installed. You can install it by typing: apt-get install subversion-tools -bash: svnmerge: command not found Could you tell me more about this? It does merge tracking for you. We use it for years to track merged changes to the fixes branches. Is it something the FPC team created for FPC? Where can I get it and can you give a possible usage example? http://www.orcaware.com/svn/wiki/Svnmerge.py ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Lazarus repository in Git (summary)
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: Hi, As promised, here is the final details of comparing SubVersion and Git using the *full* Lazarus history. A git repository of full fpc takes 1,2 GB (checkout of trunk+history). ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] SubVersion vs Git
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: Hi, Seeing that Lazarus and FPC are reasonable sized projects and have been using SubVersion for some time, there should be a few SubVersion experts around. Have any of you weighed up the pros and cons between SubVersion and Git? Has FPC or Lazarus team ever considered moving to Git? Git is a hype. Git might be nice for projects with 100 developers and which has (like linux) dedicated branch maintainers. Git allows to support complicated project structures with several layers of maintainers and project managers. But this is something smaller projects like FPC or Lazarus don't need. I'm busy downloading a 1 hour YouTube video demoing Git [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dhZ9BXQgc4], so maybe afterwards I will have a better understand of Git. But from what I had read so far, Git seems superior in a few areas... I will list what I know below... What are your thoughts? * Git makes branching and merging really simple. This is a simplified view. Git doesn't solve either the real problems of merging: testing of the merged code and solving textuel conflicts. * Git repositories are MUCH smaller. Who did tell you this? Linus? Does he have the history of the Linux code since version 0.1 in his repository? SubVersion has duplicates of each file which actually more than doubles the size of a repository. * Git is local, so checking history or doing commits are really fast. I doubt that a repository containing the full lazarus history is smaller than a repository containing each file twice. * You have lots of backups of Git repositories because they are local to each developer. In SubVersion, if the repository server is down, everybody is stuck. Only with committing. With a DVCS you're also stuck if the repository for the official code is dead. Great that you can commit to your local repository but nobody will see it so what's the point about it? * Moving a SubVersion repository to Git is well supported. History stays intact. What I'm not 100% sure about is: * How well is Git supported on other platforms than Linux? Near to unusable, mercurial is much better in this regard but I still don't see any advantage for lazarus or fpc in using a dvcs. I run a read only mirror mercurial of the lazarus (http://florianklaempfl.de:8000/lazarustrunk) and fpc repository (http://florianklaempfl.de:8000/fpctrunk) for those interested in playing around with it. * Does Git handle eol-style like SubVersion, or does it have an equivalent feature? It is a linux project, what do you expect ;)? It has some strange automatic handling which probably works as well as that one of cvs. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] SubVersion vs Git
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: On 11/5/08, Graeme Geldenhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Git repositories are MUCH smaller. SubVersion has duplicates of each file which actually more than doubles the size of a repository. This is impressive. Mozilla has 10 years of history in their SubVersion repository totalling 12Gig of information. SubVersion also requires over 240,000 files in a single directory to handle the +240,000 commits. And who cares? This is on one *server*. Converting that repository with full history to Git used only 420MB. See the URL below for details - Small Space Requirements section. Great, every client gets 420 MB of junk almost never needed. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] SubVersion vs Git
Alexander Klenin schrieb: On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 18:02, Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Git is a hype. Git might be nice for projects with 100 developers and which has (like linux) dedicated branch maintainers. Git allows to support complicated project structures with several layers of maintainers and project managers. But this is something smaller projects like FPC or Lazarus don't need. I disagree. I, for example, have moved all my Unix-based projects to Git, even personal ones, and it is much better to work with even in a single-developer case. In particular, ability to create commits off-line is very valuable to me. But what does it help? Nobody sees such a off-line commit. If I work on different things on subversion, I just copy the repository. * Git repositories are MUCH smaller. Who did tell you this? Linus? Does he have the history of the Linux code since version 0.1 in his repository? Since Git is distributed, the notion of his repository is rather vague, but such a repository definitely exists: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/old-2.6-bkcvs.git;a=summary last change Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:08:33 + It does not contain all changes made ever to linux as e.g. the lazarus svn does: the lazarus svn contains _all_ changes made ever to lazarus. * Git is local, so checking history or doing commits are really fast. I doubt that a repository containing the full lazarus history is smaller than a repository containing each file twice. They are usually of about equal size, for example, svn checkout of Pidgin (IM tool) is 122 MB while complete history in Git repository is 148 MB. But the OP's point was that local operations are MUCH faster, so much that it changes the work flow. For example, to show a few last log messages from the lazarus repository takes me 10-20 sec., With TortoiseSVN's cache it's also instantenous for me :) and showing a diff between to revisions of a file -- another 30-60 sec., while in Git these operations are instantaneous. This is indeed a imo small disadvantage of svn but it doesn't compensate the huge bureacracy required for a dvcs. * You have lots of backups of Git repositories because they are local to each developer. In SubVersion, if the repository server is down, everybody is stuck. Only with committing. With a DVCS you're also stuck if the repository for the official code is dead. Great that you can commit to your local repository but nobody will see it so what's the point about it? With SVN if the central repository is dead, then the whole history of the project vanishes with no chance of restoration. Of course, the central repository should be backed up, but still if the failure occurs, it is catastrophic. You need this with git too because nobody ensures that anybody has really such a copy. On the contrary, with DVCS (not only Git) such a failure is just a minor inconvenience, since each developer has a local copy of the history, and can easily publish it. It could be that someone has :) Further, it requires that someone publishes this address and it gets spread. Such thing sounds nice but in reality I see no value in it. Another compelling feature of Git is the possibility to create and manage local branches. For example, when I want to add a feature to Lazarus, I would like to present it as a series of clean patches for easier review and better log history. However, I can not do this with Subversion in a practical way, so I have to submit first patch of the series, wait for it to get accepted, submit the second one etc. This wastes both my and reviewer's time so much that it can take months instead of weeks to complete a moderately complex feature. Actually, I due to this obstacle have given up trying to develop more complex features for Lazarus and just submit small patches for trivial things ;-) For this use case we've the mercurial mirror. However, as far as I can see, nobody uses it for real work. Probably because of the higher learning curve of a dvcs. But at least speaking for FPC: anybody interested in FPC development can get write access to own svn branchs where he can do his development on FPC. Using svnmerge, merging of such branches is very easy. This has also the advantage that changes don't get lost in somebody's local repository either because it might not be backed up as the central svn or because the submitter forgets about his work. I even consider such a solution better than a dvcs: the danger of changes being lost is really low. Of course, this can be done only for smaller projects, but I still consider FPC/Lazarus small in this regard. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] SubVersion vs Git
Florian Klaempfl schrieb: But at least speaking for FPC: anybody interested in FPC development can get write access to own svn branchs where he can do his development on FPC. Using svnmerge, merging of such branches is very easy. This has also the advantage that changes don't get lost in somebody's local repository either because it might not be backed up as the central svn or because the submitter forgets about his work. I even consider such a solution better than a dvcs: Forgot to mention: this allows also an earlier review of patches with little effort. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] SubVersion vs Git
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: On 11/5/08, Alexander Klenin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They are usually of about equal size, for example, svn checkout of Pidgin (IM tool) is 122 MB while complete history in Git repository is 148 MB. I don't think that is incorrect. The svn checkout will only contain the last revision (no history). That means 122MB for the HEAD revision. Compare that to the Git repository of148MB for the full history! A huge difference in amount of information and size. Git is a LOT smaller. 122 MB is still less than 148 MB. But anyways, the git/dvcs hypers always forget about the drawbacks: e.g. git or mercurial don't allow partial checkouts: every checkout contains the full source tree. I do often partial checkouts, e.g. I've several checkouts only of the compiler dir. But the OP's point was that local operations are MUCH faster, so much that it changes the work flow. For example, to show a few last log messages from the lazarus repository takes me 10-20 sec., and showing a diff between to revisions of a file -- another 30-60 sec., while in Git these operations are instantaneous. This drives me absolutely nuts!! I often track bugs by comparing revisions. And doing that for remote repositories like FPC or Lazarus is a total pain in the butt! It takes forever! We don't all live in the USA with 20+Mb internet connections to our office or home. Use the mercurial mirror to do so. However, as I said, since it seems that nobody uses it, I consider it not as a real issue or even pain. Another compelling feature of Git is the possibility to create and manage local branches. For example, when I want to add a feature to Lazarus, This is one of the major features in Git that is convincing me to try Git for our company repositories. In SubVersion, branching is like an afterthought. Manually having to track merges to a branch (though apparently there was been some work towards this), etc... This is not true. svnmerge works very well for years for FPC. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] SubVersion vs Git
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: On 11/5/08, Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is impressive. Mozilla has 10 years of history in their SubVersion repository totalling 12Gig of information. SubVersion also requires over 240,000 files in a single directory to handle the +240,000 commits. And who cares? This is on one *server*. Not all filesystems like +240,000 files in a single directory. First, the 24 files in one dir are history since svn 1.6 and if it was a real issue, one could still use the bdb back end. Second, if you run such a server, you should think about the FS and use something like xfs, jfs or reiserfs. Their overall performance on servers is usually better anyways. Converting that repository with full history to Git used only 420MB. See the URL below for details - Small Space Requirements section. Great, every client gets 420 MB of junk almost never needed. You don't have to get a full history on check-out. And what's the advantage of git then ;)? ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] SubVersion vs Git
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: On 11/5/08, Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Git is a hype. Git might be nice for projects with 100 developers and which has (like linux) dedicated branch maintainers. Git allows to support complicated project structures with several layers of maintainers and project managers. But this is something smaller projects like FPC or Lazarus don't need. That's like saying I'm a single developer, I don't need a Source Code Version tool. No. The point is that a dvcs has drawbacks. The distributed nature requires a very strict management of repository structure and for the changeset flow. Which repository is used the create the releases? Who merges to this repository and when? What if somebody never pushes his changes and keeps them local till his harddisk breaks? How does testing work? When are tests run? At every commit? Every push? Not to mention the more complex use of a dvcs. Here at work I'am happy if people use svn up/svn co correctly and not do svn rm/svn add to commit a changed file. With subversion is this self regulated and the structure subversion offers is enough for smaller projects like fpc/lazarus. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] SubVersion vs Git
See my other mail ;) Please watch the YouTube demo on Git. You will find it enlighening - I'm busy watching it now. The guy doing the demo has only used Git in small teams 3-6 developers and admits he hasn't used in in large environments (like Linux kernel), yet he is still impressed by the improvements over CVS and SVN. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dhZ9BXQgc4] What I read so far about the advantages of git in small teams can be achieved easier with svn. I can't help people if they don't know how to use svn. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] SubVersion vs Git
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: On 11/5/08, Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: For the record, the whole lazarus svn repository on idefix is 392 MB, i.e. including all history. What is idefix? The machine running svn.freepascal.org. Like I mentioned before... I did a fresh Lazarus Trunk (head) revision checkout with svn. The total size of that single (head) revision was 314MB. That's one revision with no history. If I do a 'svn export' of that directory to get rid of all the .svn directories, the size drops to 76MB. 392 MB is the size of repository on the server. Anyway, I have no idea what 'idefix' is so I can't really comment on your message. Regards, - Graeme - ___ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/ ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] SubVersion vs Git
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: On 11/5/08, Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the more complex use of a dvcs. Here at work I'am happy if people use svn up/svn co correctly and not do svn rm/svn add to commit a changed file. With subversion is this self regulated and the structure subversion offers is enough for smaller projects like fpc/lazarus. My (personal) two main benefit for Git is: * I can easily and quickly do revision comparisons locally without communicating with the remote server This is indeed a point and that's why I installed the mercurial mirror already some time ago. * I can do local commits and keep a history of those commits. Then once my long taking feature is complete, I can generate a patch for primary repository. The better way is imo to create a branch at the main repository where you can work, so as I said in my other mail, it is backed up, everybody can review it early and easily, you don't need to take the hazzle to get your own tree online. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] SubVersion vs Git
Vincent Snijders schrieb: 2008/11/5 Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: And to use branches I need write access to the SVN repository. So now you will be happy giving everybody write access? People having asked so far, got their own branch, at least for FPC. And filling the 'branches' directory with everybody's experiments. Doing svn rm is rather simple if needed. But I'd be happy to see people filling branches with experiments, yes :) Apparently this is not the case for the fpc docs. Well, even I don't owe to commit to the fpc docs repository without fear :) This is something special ;) ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] [OT] New free IDE from Trolltech
Mac Programmer schrieb: (2) Continued standardizing on the dominant IDE's for most large organizations, that is on Visual Studio, Eclipse or maybe XCode if you're doing serious Mac work. This also frees up the compiler and tool developers from having to do an IDE for their products. Using a generic IDE like Eclipse saves almost no time, the time consuming and great things like good debugger support, source code browsing require still a lot of work and one is bound to some strange code base. - A version of SWIG that supports Object Pascal syntax, so we could create Python (and possibly other) interfaces to our classes, This is as useless as a a .Net backend. Such a beast might have OP syntax but everything must be recoded anyways due to different libraries etc. - A .NET strategy. I'm not suggesting a compiler that produces .NET assemblies, but rather some way to use our classes with .NET, maybe by wrapping them in a .NET assembly. - Possible integration with the big IDE's. IMO the only IDE superior to Lazarus is Visual Studio, but this is only due to the great debugger and things like Edit and Continue and this is something which cannot achived by some plugin like integration. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Cannot install Lazarus-0.9.26/fpc-2.2.2 on Suse 10.0, help needed
Bart schrieb: I'm not keen on upgrading my Suse to 11.0 (or 10.3), because I run it on an old computer (Celeron 700 Mhz, 512 Mb), and getting X to recognise and setting up my LCD monitor was a PITA. Does anyone know if it is at all possible to build fpc 2.2.2 form source with glibc 2.3? If so, I could tarts trying to work my way around this. Building everything from source should work, even more for FPC itself you can use the tar archive to install. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Mantis statistics
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Michael Van Canneyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is such a page, but I don't think it is available for 'normal' users. Only devels/mantis managers can view this page. Why? There is no secret information about a graph showing project summary information? The reason is probably load. Generating the graphs takes several seconds for e.g. FPC. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] MacOSAll.pas has invalid UTF-8 characters
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: Hi, From what I can gather the following unit seems to have invalid UTF-8 characters fpc/packages/univint/src/MacOSAll.pas What makes you think the file is utf-8 encoded? ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Can Lazarus Target Nintendo DS?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: If I have the Nintendo DS FreePascal compiler installed under Windows, is it possible to get Lazarus to target that OS/CPU? How do I get it to appear in the IDE's list of possible targets? Just if some one wants to update lazarus, fpc knows currently: 'linux','go32v2','win32','os2','freebsd','beos','haiku','netbsd', 'amiga','atari','solaris', 'qnx', 'netware','openbsd','wdosx', 'palmos','macos','darwin','emx','watcom','morphos','netwlibc', 'win64','wince','gba','nds','embedded','symbian' ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
[Lazarus] make install problem on system which never had lazarus
Is this known that make install seems to broken on a system never had lazarus? make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/florian/fpc/lazarus' /bin/cp -Rfp . /usr/local/share/lazarus ln -sf /usr/local/share/lazarus/lazarus /usr/local/bin/lazarus-ide ln -sf /usr/local/share/lazarus/startlazarus /usr/local/bin/startlazarus ln -sf /usr/local/share/lazarus/lazbuild /usr/local/bin/lazbuild cat /usr/local/share/lazarus/docs/lazbuild.1 | gzip /usr/local/share/man/man1/lazbuild.1.gz cat: /usr/local/share/lazarus/docs/lazbuild.1: No such file or directory ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] In the name of science
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: Off-topic but very cool... actually weird! :-) TRICK #1 An Indian discovered that nobody can create a FOLDER anywhere on the computer which can be named as 'CON'. This is something pretty cool...and unbelievable. .. At Microsoft the whole Team, couldn't answer why this happened! This is probably an urban legend that nobody can answer this: CON is a reserved device name (console, try echo asdf CON) like e.g. COM1. You can't create a folder called COM1 either if you're system has COM1. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Pasic Ide - previously named Lightsarus
Ciprian Mustiata schrieb: Hi Lazarus devel team and users, - FreePascal applications are huge! Well, PasIDE needs 28 MB here to display an error at startup while FPC/Lazarus needs 24 MB to run a full RAD IDE. Not to talk about the .Net framework downloads. So I wonder what's huge :) inline: Paside.png___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Pasic Ide - previously named Lightsarus
Ciprian Mustiata schrieb: This memory measurements are biased. Not more biased than your statements about huge applications. If you take that memory is not freed at once (excluding if you program using IDisposable) because of GC, in a well crafted benchmark, always will make a .NET application to use more than a Lazarus one. So what's your point? Main memory is more expensive than hard disk space. So, do it by yourself. Anyway, the scope of the today preview was to show how it will be about and you are very welcome to feedback any oppinions. I guess most people agree that this has nothing to do with lazarus: it's neither an addon nor compatible, so you might advertise somewhere else. are kept in RAM, only for one reason, is faster a Show than to create a dialog from scratch. Of course, else .Net applications would suck even more. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Obtaining TIDesigner
Boian Mitov schrieb: I still stand by my statement that this so called optimization is a design bug in FPC. Of course this is just my opinion, and you guys can disagree. That is no problem, as long as there are work around etc ;-) . Only the time will tell who is right. My prediction is that the so called optimization will lead to so many problems overtime that at some point it will be removed, and the interfaces will start working as they in all other languages I have used, What did you use so far? DOS batch files? Maybe listen to things people tell you. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Obtaining TIDesigner
Boian Mitov schrieb: Outdated, but shows some of the history. Everybody is free to post any page on the web. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Google says this site may harm your computer
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: On 16/06/2008, John vd Waeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When clicking a link on a Google search result that points to lazarus.freepascal.org... Site is listed as suspiciuous... Upgrade to Linux and let viruses be a thing of the past! ;-) Indeed, root kits are the future ;) ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] Svn mirror is not in sync with primary server
Luiz Americo Pereira Camara schrieb: The svn mirror at http://svn2.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/trunk is stuck at revision 15291 while svn logs show that current revision is 15354. Can someone take a look at it? Fixed. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] ARM-WinCE test - DBF
Joost van der Sluis schrieb:
Op zaterdag 17-05-2008 om 21:06 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I probably do not see the depth of the problem, and this seems to be just
too easy, but for me this should be done on the compiler level: how about a
compiler switch which forces the compiler to think as if the unaligned
keyword was there at the potentially problematic assignments. FPC and
Lazarus aims to have a single source for all platforms, and this is broken
if you have to change the source for ARM.
Is there an unaligned keyword?
Yes.
What does it do? And how does it helps
me?
Tell the compiler to access memory location assuming that it is not
aligned naturally:
var
p : plongint;
begin
getmem(p,8);
inc(pointer(p),1);
{ seg. faults: }
p^:=1234;
{ works }
unaligned(p^):=1234;
{ seg. faults }
writeln(p^);
{ works }
writeln(unaligned(p^));
end.
Remember I told you this:
- Original Message -
From: Joost van der Sluis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And the only thing I know about alignment, is that it has something
to
do with starting each 'thing' (word, integer, longint) on an
memory-location that could be divided by 2/4/8/whatever.
Joost
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org
http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org
http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] I ported some components, not sure if I can publish them :-(
A.J. Venter schrieb: Diese Komponenten sind Public Domain, das Urheberrecht liegt aber beim Autor. [...] In Germany, public domain does not exist. One *can not* give up the copyright. But one can allow unrestricted use. So what would you think reading that license? Either way, Germany cannot dictate to foreigners the terms under which they may make their works available unless they made public domain publishing so illegal as to ban the import of public domain works from countries that allow it - something I seriously doubt. As I said before: one cannot drop the copyright in Germany (actually Urheberrecht, correct translation would be probaly creator right) because one did the work and nobody else, it's an absolut right which cannot be transfered except by inheritance. But one can allow unrestricted use which is practically the same as public domain. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Re: [Lazarus] SVN WinCE Interface Build Fails
Paul Michell schrieb: I've just tried to build the WinCE interface off current SVN and the build fails with: Free Pascal Compiler version 2.2.1 [2008/02/20] for arm Copyright (c) 1993-2007 by Florian Klaempfl Target OS: WinCE for ARM Compiling interfaces.pp Compiling winceint.pp Compiling winceproc.pp Compiling winceextra.pp Compiling winceproc.pp winceproc.pp(718,88) Warning: Mixing signed expressions and longwords gives a 64bit result winceproc.pp(751,4) Note: User defined: TODO: create copy bitmap to section and use bits winceproc.pp(935,1) Error: Illegal expression winceproc.pp(935,5) Error: Illegal expression winceproc.pp(935,9) Error: Illegal expression winceproc.pp(935,10) Error: Illegal expression winceproc.pp(935,10) Fatal: Syntax error, ; expected but identifier MINE found Fatal: Compilation aborted make[2]: *** [interfaces.ppu] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `C:/Applications/Lazarus/lcl/interfaces/wince' make[1]: *** [wince_all] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `C:/Applications/Lazarus/lcl/interfaces' make: *** [interfaces] Error 2 There appears to be some work-in-progress type editing around line 935 that leaves the interface in an uncompilable state. Since it's not in svn, it seems that it is your local copy which in unclean, just revert the affected file if this is the only change. ___ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
