----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Chalko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 9:24 PM Subject: RE: Build.xml standardization
> I think the point here is not forbidding them, but encouraging > new projects to "work out of the box" with "ant all" and not require > build.sh/bat > > I use build.sh and build.bat a lot at work, but there is only 4 developers > and I have pretty tight control. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 9:23 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Build.xml standardization > > > Daniel Rall wrote: > > > > +1 on no build.{sh,bat} files...users should install Ant and use the > > `ant` command. > > For that to work, Ant has to maintain backwards compatibility (which they > have been pretty good about lately), and projects can't step up to the > latest features until it has been released. > > Peter changed the jar task to accept a "file" attribute, deprecated > "jarfile", and then proceeded to check in an updated ant.jar into the > avalon projects. > > - Sam Ruby > > P.S. From personal experience, you can say that nobody should check in Ant > jars or have build.{sh,bat} files, but people will check them in anyway. > Even "-1"'s won't stop them. That's why I wrote Gump. I have a single > build script which can build any project with the collection of jars that I > specify. The fact that it produces nags that some people find helpful is > just a fortunate byproduct . ;-) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
