I'm only one person, so a wider sampling would be good, but I like "DoBuild" or something descriptive.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Roelof Blom <[email protected]> wrote: > What do you prefer? What's the most usable name, release.cmd or > buildsimple.cmd or go.cmd? > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Tim Barcz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Updating now. >> >> Why "enduser.cmd"? just curious. IMO it's not the most obvious...(I fully >> admit that there is "How to Build" but again, usability, usability, >> usability. Most programs/websites have help sections that are RARELY used. >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Roelof Blom <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Tim, >>> >>> Can you update to the latest trunk and run enduser.cmd? >>> >>> -- Roelof. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Tim Barcz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Markus, >>>> >>>> That would make more sense... >>>> >>>> I'm just suggesting to reduce friction. It's a usability thing, if >>>> average users struggle to build, you should do what it takes to capture the >>>> average user. I, you, people on this list, can build without much issue >>>> because we're used to the oss world. >>>> >>>> Just like you would on an application, make it "usable" >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Markus Zywitza < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> But perhaps we should change release.cmd to call build.cmd quick >>>>> release clean build. >>>>> >>>>> -Markus >>>>> >>>>> 2009/3/27 Roelof Blom <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Tim, >>>>>> >>>>>> It *is* fixed, but running some random build script without reading >>>>>> 'How to build.txt' will get you into trouble, like kzu demonstrated by >>>>>> twittering. >>>>>> >>>>>> Like I wrote earlier, run the new *build.cmd* script, for instance >>>>>> 'build.cmd quick build'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please let me know it this works for you. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Roelof. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Tim Barcz <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure where things stand but I STILL cannot build when pulling >>>>>>> directly from source. I am not the only one either, this is last night >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> twitter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://m.twitter.com/kzu/status/1399399001: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> get castle trunk, run included release.cmd => "'nant' is not >>>>>>>> recognized blah blah...". #FAIL >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can we get this fixed ASAP? I don't understand why we can't reduce >>>>>>> the friction for building. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Roelof Blom >>>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, I committed my local stuff. But thanks for the patch, it >>>>>>>> triggered me to commit this stuff. Run the new build.cmd script to use >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> embedded NAnt and NUnit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- Roelof. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Tim Barcz <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Isn't this what I committed? Has the patch been applied? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Roelof Blom < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have a version that has NAnt and NUnit embedded and has a simple >>>>>>>>>> batch file (build.cmd) to drive the build. Any objections to >>>>>>>>>> committing it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> Roelof. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Matt Robinson < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +1 then -- >>>>>>>>>>> if you'd like some testing help let me know. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> matt >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 11, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Tim Barcz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Basically what'd I'd do is bring in nant and any external >>>>>>>>>>> libraries that are needed (nunit is another one I can think of) and >>>>>>>>>>> provide >>>>>>>>>>> batch files for the most common scenarios. The idea would be to >>>>>>>>>>> non-invasive on the build file itself, that's I'd like to leave >>>>>>>>>>> alone for >>>>>>>>>>> the reasons you pointed out. I only want to reduce friction around >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> current build file/process. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Matt Robinson < >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> what files in the current build setup would this affect? the >>>>>>>>>>>> nature of the castle .build files makes it easy to do complicated >>>>>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>>>>> (castle dynproxy -> nhibernate -> rhino tools / full castle -> >>>>>>>>>>>> your in-house >>>>>>>>>>>> code), so I'd only be worried if this would somehow remove the >>>>>>>>>>>> current >>>>>>>>>>>> "hookability", if that makes any sense? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 11, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Tim Barcz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am more than willing to get this up and running for major >>>>>>>>>>>> areas of the build if you all will let me. I have this on our >>>>>>>>>>>> build here at >>>>>>>>>>>> work where everything is referenced relatively. The goal is that >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> users/developers should be able to get source and get up and >>>>>>>>>>>> running very >>>>>>>>>>>> very quickly. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Despite how this sounds, I see this as being very non-invasive >>>>>>>>>>>> and quick to do. I'd love to contribute if you guys approve this. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Julian Birch < >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider this a +1. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I actually wrote a program to do this, I got so bored with all >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the various bits you need to get/know. Keep meaning to turn >>>>>>>>>>>>> it into >>>>>>>>>>>>> something someone else could use. It downloads Nant, Nunit and >>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Julian. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2009/2/11 Daniel Hölbling <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd really love to see that since I have failed miserably to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compile Castle from source last week. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some way to easily compile the source would be great. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Especially since I often hop machines and keeping all build >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tools in sync >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is quite challenging) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greetings, Daniel >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Bill Barry < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hink there should be a text file there containing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions to get the Nant sour >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
