If there is going to be a vote, I'm +1 for *not* including any IDE specific files in th SVN repo, since having those in the repo unneccesarilly complicate things.
Azeez On 8/18/06, Eran Chinthaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > Eran Chintaka wrote: > >> 1. There are lot of non-eclipse users who are checking out/in code (FYI >> : most of the axiom devs are *not* using eclipse). So why bother we >> checking out eclipse junk :) > > Are you telling me, it disturbs you to have two additional files and a > folder, which are most possibly even hidden because of the .foo > convention? Come on this is not a valid argument. Do we put anything here as they are not visible and just few files? Its a question of whether we need them or not. > > >> 2. As Ajith also had already mentioned, maven helps you to generate the >> relevant IDE specific stuff. > > It does. However, the output of the plugins is far from acceptable. In > particular, the output folders will rarely match. Customizing them to your needs is that particular users problem. What sort of developers are you expecting here. Do you think they don't have the ability even to setup the project? > > Besides, there's more to it: Compiler settings (which should obviously > match those from the pom), formatting guidelines, and the like. These > aren't controlled by any plugin. I agree with this. But the option is not to commit IDE specific stuff here, rather to go and improve the relevant maven plugins. > > >> 3. Some one can declare a variable in Eclipse, pointing to his folder >> and can accidentally commit that in to svn. > > The files I have committed do not use any variables. No you didn't get my point. Having got the .project file from the svn, one might change it locally, adding variables, jdk locations. etc. The problem comes when it is committed to the code base. > > >> 4. If some one is having a customized version of .project and .classpath >> files, they always gets conflicts, which is un-necessary, IMO. > > IMO, that's a question of discipline. And, if it actually happens: > What prevents you from revoking or overwriting a commit? Again, you didn't get the point. I can remember Jeremy complained about this in commons-dev [1]. > > The point I am trying to make is that IDE specific files can be good > for some people. If they proove to be disturbing the projects work, > then I'd be the first to remove it. But so far I can only see a "we > don't like it" and no "look at this example, it has really done harm". > Which matches my personal experience with other projects. Please look at [1]. That will show you that its not that I don't like it, but its a problem. BTW, if this is not settling up, I'd like to call for a vote on this. Thanks, Chinthaka [1] : http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-commons-dev/200608.mbox/ajax/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Thanks Afkham Azeez
