Diane Holt wrote: > >> I typically have at least 8 projects checked out at a time, >> including 3 versions of tomcat, and I already have 2 versions >> of ant installed. > > A-ha -- here's the essential difference between the way you do things vs. > the way I do them. I never have build tools installed anywhere (as in, > permanently resident on some machine somewhere) -- all my tools are source > controlled. When someone pulls the source into a work area, the tools come > right along with it, as do the buildfiles and anything else needed to run > the build. If they're pulling head revisions, they get latest&greatest -- > if they're pulling from a label, they get the tools and buildfiles at the > versions they were at when that label got created (ie., when that > build/release was done), because they got labelled right along with > everything else. Any tools/files that make up the build process are (to me > anyway) just as much a part of the source as the source-code files are. > Any buildfile I have that was written for Ant1.2 will have an Ant1.2 to > run against, because that's what'll get pulled into the tree. Just having > who-knows-what installations of the tools around on who-knows-which > machines would be, to me, a guaranteed road to chaos and, frankly, gives > me the willies just thinking about it :)
Just curious, do you also do this for the perhaps most basic of build tools of them all: javac? Or are you like most of us and when you install a new patch level of the JDK you pretty much do it globally across all the projects that you deal with? I find the line is different for everyone, but over the past few years I have noticed a trend whereby most people outside the immediate ant-dev community are treating ant as more javac like. - Sam Ruby -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
