Agreed. Great job, makes sense to me! On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 09:40, Alex Boisvert <[email protected]> wrote:
> Presumably, we create the ~/.buildr directory so buildfiles/plugins can > write into it. > > I changed the code such that the directory is only created if ENV['HOME'] > is set, the directory exists and is writable. > > I do think buildfiles/plugins should handle this condition on a > case-by-case basis: either fail, warn the user or continue silently > depending on what they're doing. The existence of ~/.buildr should be > optional. > > alex > > > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Antoine Toulme <[email protected]>wrote: > >> No rush. Here is maybe one way to look at it (I didn't look at how you >> modified the code yet though): >> >> You can expect that folder to be created and existing if ENV['home'] is >> set. >> >> WDYT ? >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 08:36, Alex Boisvert <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Yes, known issue... I was waiting to make up my mind on it. I'll clean >>> it up. >>> >>> alex >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Antoine Toulme >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> This spec fails ./spec/core/application_spec.rb:28 with this >>>> message 'Buildr::Application home_dir should point to existing >>>> directory' >>>> FAILED expected true, got false >>>> >>>> I think this is related to the change you introduced recently Alex, on >>>> one >>>> of Ittay's bugs, where you removed the line that creates the .buildr >>>> folder >>>> in the home folder because in some setup there is no home folder. >>>> >>>> Should we just remove that spec ? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Antoine >>>> >>> >>> >> >
