Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

P1689 Format for describing dependencies of source files #466

Open
wg21bot opened this issue Jun 23, 2019 · 7 comments
Open

P1689 Format for describing dependencies of source files #466

wg21bot opened this issue Jun 23, 2019 · 7 comments

Comments

@wg21bot
Copy link
Collaborator

@wg21bot wg21bot commented Jun 23, 2019

P1689R0 Format for describing dependencies of source files (Ben Boeckel, Brad King)

@wg21bot wg21bot added this to the 2019-07 milestone Jun 23, 2019
@wg21bot wg21bot added the SG15 label Jun 23, 2019
@tahonermann
Copy link
Collaborator

@tahonermann tahonermann commented Jul 18, 2019

SG16 2019-07 review in Cologne

No polls taken. The author was present. The intent of SG16 review was to evaluate the approach taken for handling file names.

Dropping the SG16 label.

@brycelelbach
Copy link
Collaborator

@brycelelbach brycelelbach commented Jul 19, 2019

Cologne 2019-07 SG15 Minutes

P1689R0 Dependency Metadata Format

Champion: Ben Boeckel

Minute Taker: Nathan Burgers

Start Overview: 07-19 9:57

Start Review: 10:10

Start Polling: 10:12

POLL: Remove the top-level "extensions" key.

NO OBJECTION TO UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Attendance: 20

POLL: Require a vendor string at the start of extensions.

Strongly For Weakly For Neutral Weakly Against Strongly Against
4 7 5 1 0

Attendance: 20

That has consensus.

Break: 10:17

Resume: 10:40

Percent encoding vs unicode escaping.

Names to bikeshed:

  • "logical" -> "logical-name"
  • "readable" -> "readable-path"
  • "data" -> "code-units" (SG16 should decide)
  • "provides" (this is probably fine)
  • "requires" (this is probably fine)

Start Polling: 11:12

POLL: Remove percent encoding for filepaths.

Strongly For Weakly For Neutral Weakly Against Strongly Against
0 8 6 1 0

Attendance: 17

A: I think it's useful.

That has consensus.

POLL: Remove "future-link".

Strongly For Weakly For Neutral Weakly Against Strongly Against
1 5 8 0 0

Attendance: 17

That has consensus.

End: 11:23

CONSENSUS: Bring a revision of P1689R0, with the guidance below, to SG15 for further review.

  • Remove the top-level "extensions" key.
  • Require a vendor string at the start of extensions.
  • Remove percent encoding for filepaths.
  • Remove "future-link".
  • Produce bikeshedding options for "logical", "readable", "data", "provides", and "requires".
  • Produce "wording".

@wg21bot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@wg21bot wg21bot commented Aug 23, 2019

P1689R1 Format for describing dependencies of source files (Ben Boeckel, Brad King)

@wg21bot wg21bot removed this from the 2019-07 milestone Aug 23, 2019
@wg21bot wg21bot added this to the 2019-11 milestone Aug 23, 2019
@wg21bot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@wg21bot wg21bot commented Jan 18, 2020

P1689R2 Format for describing dependencies of source files (Ben Boeckel, Brad King)

@wg21bot wg21bot removed this from the 2019-11 milestone Jan 18, 2020
@wg21bot wg21bot added this to the 2020-02 milestone Jan 18, 2020
@brycelelbach
Copy link
Collaborator

@brycelelbach brycelelbach commented Feb 18, 2020

Prague 2020-02 Tooling Minutes

P1689R2 Format for describing dependencies of source files

Chair: Michael Spencer

Champion: Ben Boeckel

Minute Taker: Peter Bindels

Start Review: 2020-02-14 08:41

Open Questions:

  • Which ISO spec should we reference?
  • File path encoding scheme.

Start Polling: 09:57

POLL: We should support paths not representable in UTF-8 in the initial version.

Strongly For Weakly For Neutral Weakly Against Strongly Against
3 8 7 2 0

Attendance: 21

# of Authors: 1

Author Position: SF

CONSENSUS: In favor.

End: 10:15

CONSENSUS: Direct the authors of P1689 (Format for Describing Dependencies of Source Files), P1788 (Reuse of the Built Modules (BMI)), and P1838 (Modules User-Facing Lexicon and File Extensions) to combine said papers, with the guidance below, and produce a P numbered first draft of the Modules Ecosystem Technical Report for review by the Tooling Study Group.

  • P1689: Follow the guidance from Prague 2020-02
    • Identify which JSON specification is the correct one to reference.
  • P1788: Follow the guidance from Belfast 2019-11
    • Recommend that tools should be able to rely on accessing module recipes through satellite files.
    • Explore combined satellite files/one satellite file per package.
    • If the format isn't JSON, please have a strong rationale.
    • Recommend that implementation can support embedding module recipes in BMIs as an optimization if they wish.
  • P1838: Follow the guidance from Prague 2020-02
    • Remove "Prior Art" sections from the definitions wording.
    • Remove ", machine code (object files)" from the definition of BMI.
    • Call the act of creating a BMI "BMI Generation".
    • Rename "Dependency Metadata" to either "Dependency Information" or "Dependency Data".
    • Rename "Implicit/Explicit Module Builds" to "Implicit/Explicit Build Strategy".
    • Add terms for "module" and "module interface".
    • Remove "translation" from all the TU terms.
    • Add "unit" to all terms in the TU chart.
    • Explore adding a term for another type of TU: non-partition module implementation units.
      • Mathias Stearn will write a paper proposing the addition of the term in the International Standard.
    • Rename "Module Partition Interface|Implementation" to "Module Interface|Implementation Partition".
    • Separate file extensions into a separate paper that explores recommending a single file extension for importable module units.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed this from the 2020-02 milestone Mar 7, 2020
@wg21bot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@wg21bot wg21bot commented Dec 27, 2020

P1689R3 Format for describing dependencies of source files (Ben Boeckel, Brad King)

@wg21bot wg21bot added this to the 2021-telecon milestone Dec 27, 2020
@wg21bot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@wg21bot wg21bot commented Jun 26, 2021

P1689R4 Format for describing dependencies of source files (Ben Boeckel, Brad King)

@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed this from the 2021-telecon milestone Jan 1, 2022
@jensmaurer jensmaurer added this to the 2022-telecon milestone Jan 1, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
4 participants