Ichthyostega
051cb31e28
The RfC documents were written to complement discussions of the Lumiera developers; yet since the time where ''Ichthyo'' is working basically alone on the project, this kind of discussions have ceased. During the following years, some ideas promoted by the existing RfC documents became rather detached from the actual state of development in the code base. Many of the existing RfC documents require some commentary to place them into context, and some of the decisions taken in the early stage of the project should be **re-assessed**. This includes the decision to reject some proposals, which initially might have seemed desirable, yet could not be reconciled with the understanding of the matter and topic in question, as was gained through the ongoing analysis and development.
188 lines
7 KiB
Text
188 lines
7 KiB
Text
Design Process : Development Framework
|
||
======================================
|
||
|
||
[options="autowidth"]
|
||
|====================================
|
||
|*State* | _Final_
|
||
|*Date* | _2007-06-08_
|
||
|*Proposed by* | Cehteh
|
||
|====================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Development Framework
|
||
---------------------
|
||
Here we collect how the tree/repository will be set up and which tools are
|
||
needed/required for working on lumiera.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Description
|
||
~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||
.Tools required:
|
||
* Unix like shell environment with standard tools
|
||
* we don't require a specific linux distribution
|
||
* Git 1.5.3 (not out yet, but really soon, we want submodules support)
|
||
* GNU toolchain, autoconf/automake (maybe SCons or something else?)
|
||
* Bouml (version case unresolved)
|
||
|
||
.Tools suggested:
|
||
* doxygen
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Tasks
|
||
^^^^^
|
||
* _Cehteh_ will setup a initial repository
|
||
(see -> link:{rfc}/RepositorySetup.html[RfC: proposed repository structure])
|
||
* ichthyo has setup a debian-APT-depot at 'deb/ichthyostega.de' and will
|
||
add backport packages there if necessary so the debian-people can stay near
|
||
Etch/stable in the next time
|
||
* _Ichthyo_ volunteers to get the new source into a debian package structure from
|
||
start (same as the current cinelerra is)
|
||
|
||
.And for later:
|
||
* decide on a Unit Test framework
|
||
(see -> link:rfc/UnitTestsPython.html[RfC Unit-Tests])
|
||
* can we get some continuous integration running somewhere (nightly builds,
|
||
testsuite)?
|
||
* find a viable toolchain for writing more formal documentation.
|
||
ReStructured Text, Docbook etc?
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Cons
|
||
^^^^
|
||
* Git submodules are just not usable yet; we need to come along with one
|
||
monolitic large project until they are available.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Alternatives
|
||
^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||
* use visual studio and .NET [big]#😇#
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Rationale
|
||
~~~~~~~~~
|
||
The project will be tied to a distributed infrastructure based on Git. With recent
|
||
Git submodules support it should be easy to let contributors only checkpout/work on
|
||
parts of the tree (plugins, documentation, i18n, ...). We want to build up a
|
||
set of maintenance scripts in an `./admin` directory.
|
||
|
||
At the moment we go for rather bleeding edge tools, because we want to stay at
|
||
a given version to avoid incompatibility problems. Later on a version switch
|
||
needs agreement/notification by all devs.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Comments
|
||
--------
|
||
|
||
I am always in favor of getting the basic project organization and all
|
||
scripting up and running very early in a project. I would like if the project
|
||
would take a rather conservative approach on the required Libs and Tools, so
|
||
that finally, when we get into a beta state, we can run/compile on the major
|
||
distros without too much pain. I wouldn't completely abandon the idea to target
|
||
*bsd and osX as well later on.
|
||
|
||
I would propose to move Doxygen to ``required''. The Idea to use SCons sounds
|
||
quite appealing to me at the moment. Besides that, I think this RfC could be
|
||
moved to ``Draft''.
|
||
|
||
Ichthyostega:: '2007-06-17T00:18:40Z'
|
||
|
||
Moved to Draft. For Developer documentation I would prefer doxygen. For user
|
||
documentation we can make a similar/same think like nicolasm did for
|
||
cinelerra2, means wiki for edits, git to maintain it, based on gnu texinfo.
|
||
Texinfo is quite limiting in its capabilities but it suffices, seeing the
|
||
current cin2 docs, i say its rather well done.
|
||
|
||
We need to factor out some of the proposals from this page to subpages (scons,
|
||
documentation, testing,...)
|
||
|
||
ct:: '2007-06-17T17:27:59Z'
|
||
|
||
It would really suck if we have to go through the experiences described in the article
|
||
https://web.archive.org/web/20060427005516/http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/889/[»Stop the autoconf insanity!«].
|
||
I have experienced parts of that
|
||
in the past. I have only some beginner experience with writing autotoolized
|
||
projects (mostly based on trial-and-error) and no experience in any other build
|
||
system (such as scons). As such, I still believe that autotools can be
|
||
manageable (for me personally) once the initial hurdle of learning is overcome.
|
||
|
||
I all for Doxygen documentation. Related to documentation are
|
||
http://splint.org/[Splint: Annotation-Assisted Lightweight Static Checking].
|
||
See also http://splint.org/manual/html/appC.html[descriptions of annotations (in comments)].
|
||
I suggest
|
||
that we consider using such a tool for QA. Like ct said, this should be
|
||
discussed in a subpage.
|
||
|
||
I agree with using currently bleeding-edge tools.
|
||
|
||
* _historic remark(Ichthyo):_ who wrote that comment? (neither me nor ct)
|
||
|
||
|
||
We have now a ``compatibility wiki'', finalized this proposal
|
||
|
||
ct:: '2008-03-26T13:43:26Z'
|
||
|
||
''''
|
||
....
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
....
|
||
|
||
Assessment 2025
|
||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||
[underline]#In hindsight,# this RfC captures the baseline of our project setup. +
|
||
We soon settled upon the following toolchain, which is used up to today:
|
||
|
||
- One published Git repository per developer, with direct pull / merging; +
|
||
history is consolidated eventually into the
|
||
link:{rfc}/MasterRepositorySetup.html#historical_remark[»official Lumiera repository«],
|
||
which is made accessible at
|
||
https://git.lumiera.org/?p=LUMIERA;a=summary[`git://git.lumiera.org/LUMIERA`]
|
||
- We never used link:{rfc}/GitSubmoduleTransistion.html#_comments[Git submodules]...
|
||
- https://www.scons.org/[SCons] became the primary buildsystem soon,
|
||
with Autotools discontinued in 2011
|
||
- https://trac.edgewall.org/[Trac] is used as planning- and ticket system.
|
||
- API documentation is extracted with https://www.doxygen.nl/[Doxygen]
|
||
- Website and documentation pages are generated by
|
||
https://asciidoc-py.github.io/[Asciidoc], with source files for
|
||
documentation maintained
|
||
https://git.lumiera.org/?p=LUMIERA;a=blob;f=doc/index.txt;h=9bc0f11e6fb67588388e7616320b695841571278;hb=20f3252892d5b53a05ecd8aeb571122806baba17[in-tree],
|
||
published
|
||
https://git.lumiera.org/?p=website;a=blob;f=build_website.sh;h=60b90e18d5732d66566baf2c20a217212a5dcece;hb=aefc91e13a95a3c742dc8143c374ec982e0aa56b[automatically on push].
|
||
- A https://classic.tiddlywiki.com/[TiddlyWiki] is used for development notes
|
||
- for Unit-Tests, we use our own minimalist
|
||
https://git.lumiera.org/?p=LUMIERA;a=blob;f=src/lib/test/run.hpp;h=035633af9bde7a8053bcd304baffc21693dcf031;hb=20f3252892d5b53a05ecd8aeb571122806baba17[Test-runner].
|
||
and a
|
||
https://git.lumiera.org/?p=LUMIERA;a=blob;f=tests/test.sh;h=8c13810eb475bbacd97c528607e6750f47bb145e;hb=20f3252892d5b53a05ecd8aeb571122806baba17[shell script]
|
||
to support definition of test collections.
|
||
- A Debian package is maintained with
|
||
https://wiki.debian.org/PackagingWithGit[git-buildpackage] and published
|
||
in our own DEB depot generated by the
|
||
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianRepository/SetupWithReprepro[reprepro tooling].
|
||
- UML plays only a marginal role today -- yet in fact we generated our initial class
|
||
hierarchy with https://web.archive.org/web/20070625100128/http://bouml.free.fr/[Bouml],
|
||
as proposed by _Cehteh_. Sometimes, UML design sketches are made with
|
||
https://uml.sourceforge.io/[Umbrello], while schematic drawings,
|
||
Icons and graphic elements for the GUI are maintained
|
||
with https://inkscape.org/[Inkscape]
|
||
- Test-visualisation relies heavily on
|
||
https://graphviz.org/[Graphviz] and
|
||
http://www.gnuplot.info/[Gnuplot]
|
||
|
||
Ichthyostega:: '2025-09-20'
|
||
|
||
|
||
''''
|
||
Back to link:/x/DesignProcess.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]
|