On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Mark Rowe <mr...@apple.com> wrote: > > On 2013-01-31, at 00:59, Jochen Eisinger <joc...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Mark Rowe <mr...@apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On 2013-01-31, at 00:48, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: >> >> >>> I would consider changing or improving gyp's syntax to be on the table >> >>> if it was needed to reach the goal. >> >> >> >> For what it’s worth, I also find the gyp syntax to be unpleasant. It >> feels as though it was optimized for being processed by a machine rather >> than for being written and maintained by humans. >> > >> > Unlike xcodeproj files. :) >> >> Don’t get me wrong, Xcode projects suck for hand-editing too. However, >> they’re not intended to be edited by hand. Gyp files are, and so the >> expected level of human readability is much higher. >> > > Many of us are actually editing the Xcode projects by hand, either because > they don't have Xcode or don't know how to use it. (Yes, that includes > coming up with a bunch of new UUIDs by hand) > > > I wasn’t trying to suggest that current situation is a good one, only that > if it would be easier to get momentum on switching to something like gyp if > the replacement’s syntax was friendlier. Particularly when the people that > need to be convinced to switch, and who’ll have to adapt their workflow, > are those that are editing the project files in a nice GUI. >
Agreed. Another option is to add a webkit-patch command for modifying the build files. That way, the syntax doesn't need to be overly human friendly. There was also some attempt to write a tool to add files automatically: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61772 I would expect that such a tool becomes easier if it would only modify one source of truth and generates all other artifacts such as Xcode projects from it. best -jochen > > - Mark > >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
