I would much rather use rake then msbulid. No offence to Roelof but currently I think the only person that can maintain those scripts is him and I don't believe this is a good situation. I think Krzysztof is trying to hook up nuget and ow to our build + automate most of it, how is that going? Is msbuild working for this?
Cheers, John On 25/04/2011, at 5:36, Henry Conceição <[email protected]> wrote: > About the build: I don't like the ideia of obligating everyone to have > ruby + rake in order to build the tx stuff. Probably we will restore > the msbuild and get rid of the rake scripts when we merge the changes > on the master repo. > > On the 3.5 matter: At least for me, we can drop de support for it. > > > > Cheers, > Henry Conceição > > > > On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Henrik Feldt <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yup, a merge it is. They are merged in my repository now. >> >> >> >> The rest in this letter is about the upcoming alpha. >> >> >> >> Docs: >> >> I have added docs to the wiki as well on my repo. >> >> >> >> Building: >> >> Both projects have been rewritten, based on the previous ideas. This >> includes using rake for the build – using it makes me about 10 times as >> productive when writing the scripts. >> >> >> >> Versioning: >> >> In the rake scripts I have set up build-number versioning like that >> NHibernate uses, so that >> >> 100x is alpha >> >> 200x is beta >> >> 300x is rc >> >> 4000 is ga. >> >> >> >> So e.g., currently I’m building 2.9.9.11215 at 3 pm, or 2.9.9.1001 for the >> first alpha. >> >> >> >> The versioning for private builds uses the day of the year and the hour as >> the build number. >> >> >> >> Sadly: >> >> Right now I’m just working against .Net v4.0. There’s no real problem >> re-targeting 3.5. >> >> >> >> Code contracts: >> >> I’ve done both with MS code contracts for good or bad, but only debug builds >> have the contracts. In my opinion it’s nice for showing intent around >> interfaces. The most prominently used part is that of the static >> verification, the part which doesn’t compile into the assembly. I believe >> they work very well with unit tests as well, as one only tests allowed >> functionality as opposed to disallowed functionality that throws exception. >> >> >> >> People use the debug build with contract assertions or the release build >> without any alterations. >> >> >> >> Alpha TODO: >> >> Finish build script for building nuspecs with lib and tools. Perhaps a >> transform file for adding AutoTx and the new NHibernate Facility to a web >> site. Test this out and release 2.9.9 (perhaps). Set up a build server for >> the new rake scripts. Does castle have one that I can use for testing – >> TeamCity? I can create its configs. >> >> >> >> Release 3.0 TODO File Transactions: >> >> I’m aiming to spend a few hours on the file transactions before release to >> fully integrate it with ITxManager, but the non-file transaction parts seem >> OK. >> >> >> >> Release 3.0 TODO Forking: >> >> There is also a bit of problems related to continuation passing when forking >> dependent transactions through the new [Transaction(Fork=true)] >> functionality as tasks are awaited on the finalizer thread if exceptions are >> not observed on the main thread. >> >> >> >> Release 3.1 TODO Retry policies etc: >> >> This idea is something I’d like to investigate: possibly retrying failed >> transactions through the transaction interceptor. Also, creating a >> IHandlerSelector for choosing transient lifestyle components if in no >> ambient transaction. >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Henrik >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Krzysztof Kozmic >> Sent: den 15 november 2010 02:30 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Castle.Services.Transaction + Castle.Windsor? >> >> >> >> Henrik, >> >> What's the status of this? Did you go ahead with the merge? Do you still >> plan to? >> >> From another department - would you care to have a look at the documentation >> and expand it to fully cover all functionality of the facility? >> http://stw.castleproject.org/Windsor.ATM-Facility.ashx >> >> Krzysztof >> >> On 23/09/2010 8:52 PM, Henrik Feldt wrote: >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> >> >> I’m considering merging the code of Castle.Services.Transaction with >> Castle.Facilities.AutomaticTransactionManagement/AutoTX. This would >> introduce a dependency on Castle.Windsor for Castle.Services.Transaction. >> (Another way of saying it is that the IoC-container would be required for >> using the transactions project, which it is not now. However, it could >> simplify versioning/dll-management slightly). >> >> >> >> As of now it is merely a thought: please tell me what your opinions are on >> whether to merge them or not! >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Henrik >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Castle Project Users" 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-users?hl=en. >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Castle Project Users" 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-users?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. >> > > -- > 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.
