Ps: Indeed if the file is modified localy, git wont conplain during the checkout :-)
Envoyé depuis un mobile Samsung <div>-------- Message d'origine --------</div><div>De : webdoublefx <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> </div><div>Date :06/02/2014 15:53 (GMT+00:00) </div><div>A : dev@flex.apache.org </div><div>Objet : RE : FLEX-34070 </div><div> </div> Sorry, short answer because Im in roaming, I originaly put those files in the gitignore because they are generated and therefore it is logical to do so, this was at the start when we moved to git, Justin as RM was complaining about that for the same reasons he does today. @Maurice, this git command is to avoid files to be checked in, not checked out, not sure though if Justin could use it as part of the RM process, if yes, it would save time for everyones, Justin ? Envoyé depuis un mobile Samsung <div>-------- Message d'origine --------</div><div>De : Maurice Amsellem <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> </div><div>Date :06/02/2014 07:34 (GMT+00:00) </div><div>A : dev@flex.apache.org </div><div>Objet : RE: FLEX-34070 </div><div> </div> >IMO any non binary item in the source release should be under version control >so we have a history of how it how changed - just because it's generated >doesn't mean >you don't want to know how it changed from release to release - >it may not always be directly obvious from the generating template and build >scripts. I don't agree with that. Flex-config.xml changes = flex-config-template.xml changes + player version changes. So it's rather obvious, it's just that we are not used to that. Really, I can't see any good reason why a generated file (which is redundant in essence) would be under version control. Note for Alex: you can use $git auf <filename> to exclude a file from git checkout even if not in .gitignore (thanks to Fred for the tip). Maurice -----Message d'origine----- De : Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] Envoyé : jeudi 6 février 2014 08:24 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: FLEX-34070 Hi, > Aren't all four generated? If so, I'm still not understanding why we > call them source and have them under version control if They are part of the source and binary release zips/tar. I guess another option is to not have these files at all in the releases then there also no chance they will be incorrect. IMO any non binary item in the source release should be under version control so we have a history of how it how changed - just because it's generated doesn't mean you don't want to know how it changed from release to release - it may not always be directly obvious from the generating template and build scripts. > The diff on these four files shows an updated build number in > flex-sdk-description. How is it that you don't also show this file as > modified? Because it gets checked in before the release is tagged. Again you could accidentally make a release with "0" as the build number (quite easy to do/seen quite a few time - not 100% why it happens) so best IMO to have this file under version control. Thanks, Justin
