Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 01:06, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/29/2011 04:32 PM, Brar Piening wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
>>> Some minor nitpicks:
>>>
>>> Do we really need to create all those VSnnnnProject.pm and
>>> VSnnnnSolution.pm files? They are all always included anyway. Why not just
>>> stash all the packages in Solution.pm and Project.pm?
>>
>> We certainly don't *need* them.
>> Having different files separates the tasks of generating different target
>> file formats into different source files. In my opinion this makes it easier
>> to find the code that is actually generating the files that get used in a
>> specific build environment.
>> While the VSnnnnSolution.pm and VC200nProject.pm files are indeed not much
>> more than stubs that could eventually be extended in future (and probably
>> never will) VC2010Project.pm contains the whole code for generating the new
>> file format which would significantly bloat up the code in Project.pm that
>> currently contains the common code for generating the old file formats.
>>
>
> Does anyone else have an opinion on this. I want to wrap this up ASAP so we
> can get a VS2010 buildfarm member working.

I guess the most likely one would be me, but not really. My perl-fu is
well below this level, so I will happily +1 whatever you more
experienced perl guys say :-) I don't see a big problem with a couple
of more files - it's not like we're going to support 20 different
versions of VS anyway, once we get to 4 i'm sure the earliest one is
well out of support already and can be removed. But in summary I'd
vote for whatever matches the "general perl pest practices" at this
time.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/