My $0.02... Just thinking, If you have a bunch of parameters that will be "constant" (or at least default) across all projects, you could probably define them in a single XML file and then use <cb:include> to include that one file in all your other configs... then use the preprocessor to extract the particular params you need for that file by name...
Caveat: I've not actually tried this, because I've never really found a need to. In my experience ccnet has very sensible defaults and a human-readable XML schema (one of the best things going for it, actually!), which means the config for even a fairly major build is still short and understandable... and even if you have to specify your working directory as "C:\Builds\<projectName>\" in each individual file, doing so it keeps it flexible. Plus, it means other developers on the various project teams (who may only be vaguely aware of the existence of a build process, let alone understand the inner workings of CCNet) only need to look in one single file for any given project to figure out the build process and params for that project. Cheers, - Sam. On Dec 10, 1:31 pm, PilotBob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Currently in the <project> node of the config you can specify a > workingDirectory and an artifactDirectory. You can provide a full path > or a relative path. If relative it is relative to the folder where the > server was started from. Also, several other settings in the other > config blocks can have paths relative to these folders. > > However, what I want to do is know if there is a way to specify the > default parent for these folders. So, rather than having to enter the > same full path in many projects I can just define it once. I ask > because usually I just accept the default relative paths for most of > my config blocks. I don't seem to see a way to do this. > > Yes, I know that I can use an XML entity or a pre-processor define to > make this a bit easier. > > What would be nice is if at the cruisecontrol config level you can add > a "workingDirectory" and/or "artifactDirectory" which would then be > used as the root for all relative paths rather than the EXE folder. > > Anyone have any comment on this? Or why it is a stupid idea or what I > am missing? > > BOb
