On 14 November 2016 at 20:54, Peter Hutterer <peter.hutte...@who-t.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 03:39:18PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 13 November 2016 at 22:24, Peter Hutterer <peter.hutte...@who-t.net>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 03:45:29PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> >> From: Emil Velikov <emil.veli...@collabora.com>
> [...]
>> >> + return 1
>> >> fi
>> >> - build_dir=`dirname $status_file`
>> >> +
>> >> cd $build_dir
>> >> if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
>> >> echo "Error: failed to cd to $MODULE_RPATH/$build_dir."
>> >> @@ -377,6 +373,15 @@ process_module() {
>> >> return 1
>> >> fi
>> >>
>> >> + # Using ../ here feels a bit nasty, yet $top_src is an absolute
>> >> path. Thus
>> >> + # it will get propagated in the generated sources, which we do not
>> >> want.
>> >> + ../configure >/dev/null
>> >> + if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
>> >> + echo "Error: failed to configure module."
>> >> + cd $top_src
>> >
>> > I'd really like to see more pushd/popd, but that's unrelated to this patch.
>> > Looks good, but I think you should look at the effort to do a full local
>> > clone, it may only be a few lines and it should remove quite a bit of the
>> > error checking.
>> >
>> Yes I'm thinking/working towards having things in a cleaner state. At
>> the same time this patch would cause a noticeable change in workflow,
>> so I've intentionally opted out of making things too intrusive.
>>
>> Any objections against git worktree and/or moving towards it as a
>> follow-up change ?
>> Or you'd thinking this patch should be "it's all or nothing" kind of change ?
>
> simply said, I don't know enough about worktrees to have an opinion here,
> sorry. for the mere tarball generation and distcheck run you can use a
> shallow clone though, can't you? Just something to keep in mind, if the
> worktree works as a clean checkout without detritus, I'll be happy with tha
> too.
>
In a line: worktree like a fresh clone, with the only difference being
that .git is a file pointing to the actual git repo.
Here is an example and more info [1].
Can we have all that [shallow/full clone, worktree, other] as
follow-up, please ? Or you really don't like the git clean suggestion
?
The current patch/workflow has been tested for over a dozen times and
I feel a bit reluctant in pushing for something that's barely tested
:-\
Thanks
Emil
[1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-worktree#_examples
_______________________________________________
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
