I don't really care which one we chose. Build is something we set up and
forget, so I'm happy with whatever choice.
I'm +1 to the idea of self contained build - where we can just get
source on a clean Windows machine click build.bat and have it do its job
OOTB.
Right now my pain point with the build is that every project uses
slightly different version of the build script, which causes problems
(trying to get WCF Facility build to work like Windsor's build etc,
which lead to delay in Windsor 3 beta 1 release).
So while we're on it, can we at least try to come up with a solution to
that problem as well?
K
On 15/08/2011 6:45 AM, hammett wrote:
Check http://builds.castleproject.org/
I'm talking about a simple workflow of changing a source file, running
the build to make there's no functional regression on dependent
projects, and then making a pull request.
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Tim Kellogg<[email protected]> wrote:
@hammett,
Maybe the problem of build/test all isn't going to be solved at all by which
build system castle uses. The problem would probably solved quite well by
using a continuous integration server. Check out the free teamcity instances
at codebetter
(http://codebetter.com/jameskovacs/2009/02/24/announcing-teamcity-codebetter-com/)
--Tim
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 12:53 PM, hammett<[email protected]> wrote:
Unfortunately this will change once we get the projects group together
again. The build scripts will need to build and run the tests for all
of them. While this can be done from VS, it hardly is.
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Tim Kellogg<[email protected]>
wrote:
I've worked with rake for a while and I've been extremely pleased with
it. I'd also like to say that I don't think it would be necessary to
install ruby in order to contribute to Castle. Most rake scripts
(including henrik's) make a call to MSBuild to do the actual
compilation. If I was to contribute to castle, all I would have to do
is fork the project and open it up in visual studio and build it like
I would with any other project. The main benefit for using rake (or
anything other than MSBuild) is to automate the release process and
ensure consistency. Henrik's script does this very well.
On Aug 14, 12:11 pm, hammett<[email protected]> wrote:
Actually I woudnt assume f# is installed on every machine. I'd add the
required files to tools/fsharp or something like that.
Also, the build wouldn't be much more than invoking project's msbuild
file. So the fake script will be more about clean/build/test/publish.
I've used fake on MR3 if you want to look at the scripts. I guess it's
quite messy right now...
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Henrik Feldt<[email protected]> wrote:
I have had a look at phantom. The last commit is in February - this
is a
long time without being updated. Also, there is not nearly the same
amount
of tasks available as rake/albacore has, so more would have to be
manually
fixed - also there are more people who know ruby than know boo.
FAKE, I have no experience with. It has the positive side that F# is
shipped
with .Net so there's no install, but perhaps a negative side in that
it's
not as widely used as either MsBuild or rake.
Getting up and running with albacore is as easy as downloading the
ruby
installer and running it. Then going to the folder in question and
executing
'rake'. I don't see how this is too hard for a developer to do, but
I'm
probably partial. With regards to the number of pre-built tasks,
albacore
has a fair number of them:
https://github.com/derickbailey/Albacore/wiki/_pagesand is actively
maintained.
In any way, all of the above are better than MsBuild imo, so
whichever we
land with, I'm happier than before :).
It would be great to hear some more opinions from the team.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mauricio
Scheffer
Sent: den 14 augusti 2011 17:20
To: Castle Project Development List
Subject: Re: Builds
-1 for Rake and +1 for FAKE, I fully agree with hammett.
F# works very well as a scripting language. Phantom (
https://github.com/JeremySkinner/Phantom) also looks good (haven't
used it
personally though) if you want something more ruby-like.
--
Mauricio
On Aug 13, 8:06 pm, hammett<[email protected]> wrote:
So the experience is two fold:
1 - users download our stuff. it's easy to provide a decent
experience
here.
2 - *contributors* need to be able to get their feet quickly. and
this
is my main concern.
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Henrik Feldt<[email protected]> wrote:
Right, but if we can provide a good experience without rake, such
as
packages with the pre-built DLLs and symbols linked to source code
with
e.g.
symbolsource.org, then newcomers might not have to build - in
order
to make building it manually something that warrants being able to
download an executable and install it?
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
hammett
Sent: den 13 augusti 2011 21:02
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Builds
I'm ok with anything beyond MSBuild. The only thing I dont like
about rake is being forced to install Ruby. This may create
another
layer of complexity for newcomers.
I've tried FAKE last weekend and it's self-contained enough for my
needs.
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 5:44 AM, Henrik Feldt<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello guys,
Starting an old question now that some water has passed under the
bridges:
how to easiest build the castle projects. As you know I have been
building Transactions with rake for a while now, and it's working
well.
But I still thought it took too much time to change existing
projects into albacore/rake. So I created a gem called 'logirel'.
It scaffolds a complete rakefile with nuspecs, semver-versioning,
nuget, nuget push tasks, output tasks etc. It's not perfect, but
to
show what it can do, I ran it on Windsor's repository and made a
pull-request out of it:
https://github.com/castleproject/Castle.Windsor/pull/13
Try merging locally and running both 'rake' and 'rake -T' to see
its capabilities (or cloning haf/Castle.Windsor). First, of
course,
you need to install what's in the bundle with:
$ gem install bundle
$ bundle install
If you want to try out logirel, it's as simple as standing in the
folder you want to remake and running:
$ logirel
and then answering the questions. You need to set up a
tools/nuget.exe directory after it's done.
What do you think guys?
Cheers,
Henrik
--
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
athttp://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
--
Cheers,
hammetthttp://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
athttp://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
--
Cheers,
hammetthttp://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.
--
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.
--
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.
