Well, just to clarify.... if you change something in build.properties it
*will* (by design) take effect! Thats what its all about! :)
Erik
----- Original Message -----
From: "Otis Gospodnetic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lucene Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: cvs commit: jakarta-lucene build.xml
> That build.properties in CVS looking like it is always used (because
> it's not called .sample or something such) looks like it would confuse
> people ("I changed XYZ in build.properties, but it didn't take effect.
> Why?"), that's what I was referring to when I said half-baked.
> In any case, I'll wait to hear some more opinions.
>
> Otis
>
> --- Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ----- 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
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
