Progress hasn't stalled at all, I'm busy polishing the 1.1 bits before a release and writing the associated documentation. There's a lot of features coming up so it's a pretty hefty release...
Please don't go and tell people the wrong things about openwrap, you should really know better. On Apr 4, 11:03 am, Chris Canal <[email protected]> wrote: > All builds except for .Net 4 are currently broken, that distracted me on > Sunday, everything was red! > > The current build script is really nice, but I don't think is the right way > to go about creating the package, so the actual build process will not > change. I would like to suggest using a rake script for package generation. > This will give a lot more flexibility that MSBuild and as it's soley for > package generation, Ruby won't be a prerequisite to building Castle, just > building the package > > The rake script can resuse the current build stuff to generate the binaries, > etc., and Rake will be responsible for construction of the packages after > the files are generated. I've got a rake script that does this for some > Java project with Maven which I will be reusing (Minecraft FTW) > > Ideally, it would be nice to run the projects on top of nuget or openwrap; > but in the interim, Rake can manually construct the packages, and do > whatever else is required. And in a lot less noise too. Constructing the > package correctly manually will introduce a some additional maintence work, > as any additional dependencies will need added to the rake script. I'm not > sure about the likely hood of running all the project with nuget/openwrap, > > I've mainly looked at Castle.Core just now, and was thinking it would break > into 3 packages: > > Castle.Core > Castle.Facilities.Logging.NLog > Castle.Facilities.Logging.log4net > > I'm not 100% sure about the Logging names. There is Services.Logging and > Facilities.Logging, which should it be? > > Castle.Windsor is a little more straight forward, each project would be > becomes it's own wrap, with no direct dependency on any of the logging. The > rest of the project are all pretty straight forward and shouldn't pose much > of a problem. I haven't looked into Monorail or ActiveRecord yet as I have > never used them > > As Rafael, Openwrap is the more capable system, but nuget is getting more > coverage and progress on openwrap appears to have stalled, so that pretty > much means nuget is the one to mainly target :/ > > Sorry for the rambling, possibly useless email, I've only had a couple of > cups of coffee :) > > 2011/4/1 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]> > > > @Patrick > > > Well we have really good build scripts (thanks to Roelof) for our CI build. > > > However the release process we have is mostly manual and daunting and I > > think we should be able to get to a point where we can just trigger a > > release build on the teamcity and have that do all the release steps > > including: > > > - building the code (all supported .NET/Silverlight/Mono versions) > > - running all the tests > > > > > > > - copying all the required files including license, release notes and > > breaking changes list to the resulting package > > - building and uploading package to NuPack and OpenWrap repositories > > - tagging the code in Git and if it's a first release with this major/minor > > number also creating release branch in Git > > - updating the website / doing announcement on the list, but this is not as > > important and can stay as a manual step for the time being. > > > I may have missed some points, but that's basically it - we need to make it > > as trivial to do as possible, and that's my call to action - raise your hand > > if you'd be interested in helping or if you have some good ideas on how to > > make the process simpler. > > > On 01/04/2011 11:30 PM, Patrick Steele wrote: > > >> As someone who's only been a consumer of the Castle projects (Windsor, > >> MonoRail and ActiveRecord), I don't know what the issues are. Could > >> someone enumerate what current challenges we're faced with in > >> building/signing/releasing Castle? > > >> And is this an issue with all of the Castle packages as a whole -- or > >> each individual one? > > >> --- > >> Patrick Steele > >>http://weblogs.asp.net/psteele > > >> 2011/4/1 Krzysztof Koźmic<[email protected]>: > > >>> So we've discussed this already on several occasions. > > >>> Is anyone interested in actually helping this happen? > > >>> I'm asking for concrete ideas. > > >>> Krzysztof > > >>> -- > >>> 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. > > > -- > > 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. > > -- > "Any fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good programmers > write code that humans can understand." > -Martin Fowler et al, Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code- > Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
