----- Original Message -----
From: "Otis Gospodnetic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I do think having defaults in build.xml and not build.properties is
> better than having defaults in build.properties and that using
> build.properties for overriding defaults instead of changing build.xml
> is better (simpler for people to do, less error prone, requires less
> knowledge).
I think there is some confusion. *Never* have Jon or I suggested anything
about build.xml being edited. It should *never* be edited by an end user
just simply wanting to build Lucene from source code. The discussion is
over best practices: whether properties should be in the build.xml or
default.properties. Neither of those should be edited by this end-user.
For someone to build and change the destination of the output, he/she would
simply create a build.properties (in both Jon and I's scheme) and set that
one property. That is all.
> It would be good if others could share their opinions and votes, so
> that I can move things out of the half-baked state on build in the CVS
> repository.
Whats half-baked about it? Properties are in build.xml now, right? Is
there still a build.properties? That won't matter given that the properties
are the same value and Ant has property immutability. But if
build.properties is still there, I recommend just removing it or renaming
it. And certainly Jon's scheme is fine if you choose do so - rename
build.properties to default.properties, and remove the properties I added in
build.xml. (keep in mind that I renamed a property or two so that the demo
WAR and my docweb WAR had unique descriptive properties).
Erik
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
