Perhaps we could make it into a ruby gem? I wrote this (https://github.com/haf/Castle.Services.Transaction/blob/develop/rakefile.rb) task today -- it could be turned into this gem perhaps?
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of hammett Sent: den 26 april 2011 23:37 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Our build scripts, nuget, openwrap and related stuff Isn't this a good time to also make an assessment of the project separations? Specifically having all project separated in github. Does it make life harder/easier? 2011/4/26 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]>: > That sounds good to me, > > We'd need to write the "release" scripts pretty much from scratch > anyway so we might as well do it in RAKE since as you pointed out > there's no need to have it run elsewhere than on the build server. > > krzysztof > > On 26/04/2011 10:49 PM, Roelof Blom wrote: > > IMHO MSBuild is not really suitable for creating nuget, packaging, > releasing to SF etc. > As these tasks are only executed by the TeamCity server and/or > committers rake with Albacore will make this a lot easier and workable. > There are of course ways to get MSBuild to do this (like creating a > nuget package with NuGet.MSBuild) it's really throwing in more and > more XML for no apparent benefit. > A combination of "front-end" MSBuild scripts like we have now and a > "back-end" rake script looks best to me. > This way there's no barrier to open and build our projects locally > like they can now, and the rest can just script and automate anything > that comes to mind with a tool well suited for it. > -- Roelof. > > 2011/4/25 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]> >> >> I haven't looked beyond putting Nuget package for Windsor 2.5.3 out, >> something that was frequently requested. >> >> I would *love* to have the release process automated (to a point >> where I git push to a new tag and our TeamCity recognizes that, and >> runs a release build that does everything, including release >> packaging, releasing to SF, nuget and OW, branching (if new branch is >> needed, that is it's not a point point release and few other things I >> forgot, like updating the website in all 3 places.)) >> >> I *strongly* prefer giving MsBuild a fair shot before trying any >> other build solution, mostly because MsBuild is out of the box, it's >> .NET and many developers will flat refuse to install Ruby in order to >> build a .NET project. >> >> I think the scripts we have are really well and cleanly written and >> while I'm nowhere near as proficient at working with them as Roelof >> is, I've been able to tweak them on several occasions, same as I'm >> sure everyone else on the team would be. >> >> This however reminds me of another problem I've had, and we'll >> continue having, that is keeping consistency in build scripts among projects. >> I've mostly worked with Core and Windsor and all changes and tweaks >> introduced in one project had to be manually copied to the other one. >> As we have many more projects I'm sure trying to deploy changes to >> build process all across the board would be nothing short of a nightmare. >> >> Can we please consider some options for automated sharing the build >> files among all of our projects so that we only change things once >> and that change gets propagated to every project? >> >> I think it might also be beneficial to have a wiki page that >> a) documents how our build works and how it should be used >> b) documents customizations we've made to .csproj files so that it's >> easy to add a new project and get it to work with the build >> >> Krzysztof >> >> >> On 25/04/2011 7:49 PM, John Simons wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> -- >> 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. > -- Cheers, hammett http://hammett.castleproject.org/ -- 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.
