On Wednesday 29 April 2009 20:51:45 xor wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 April 2009 21:36:53 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Wednesday 29 April 2009 20:15:43 xor wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 29 April 2009 20:52:03 Ian Clarke wrote:
> > > > Are we sure having separate projects for "staging" and "official" in
> > > > github is the right way to organize this? I don't see any other
> > > > projects on github organized in this way. Shouldn't they be separate
> > > > branches or something, not entire separate projects?
> > > >
> > > > Ian.
> > >
> > > Mmh yes it is annoying to keep separate projects I guess: For example
the
> > > build.xml must be corrected for each project:
> > >
> > > - Fred-staging/Fred-official need different build files.
> >
> > They do? Why?
>
> The ant builder ("New builder") has a configured build file of:
> "${workspace_loc:/fred-staging/build.xml}"
> OR
> "${workspace_loc:/fred-official/build.xml}"
Ugh. Well the project can be called anything...
>
> >
> > > - WoT / Freetalk rely on Fred so the project name on which they are
> >
> > dependent
> >
> > > will not fit depending on whether you have checked out staging or
> > > official
> >
> > of
> >
> > > Fred.
> >
> > Why is this a problem? Just rename the directory! (Or on a sensible
> > operating system use a directory symlink).
>
> I did so, yes. Not really a problem you just have to be smart enough to do
so.
> And the last time I renamed the directory it screwed egit up. The safest way
> is to rename before checking out. Or to reconfigure the project dependancies
of
> Freetalk / WoT.
Aaaargh. Well, egit sucks, we have established this. git itself doesn't care
what the directory is called.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090429/abeb91b6/attachment.pgp>
