They are not unmaintainable, they are just complex.They are also the foundation for Castle, Rhino Tools, and I just installed them for a new project :-)
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Davy Brion <ral...@davybrion.com> wrote: > the nant scripts could remain available though... but right now, i consider > those scripts to be pretty much unmaintainable and a horrible mess > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Dario Quintana < > conta...@darioquintana.com.ar> wrote: > >> One reason to get NAnt running is for who use Mono. >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Davy Brion <ral...@davybrion.com> wrote: >> >>> any idea on how the msbuild story on mono is these days? ie... will it >>> work 'out-of-the-box'? >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com>wrote: >>> >>>> +1 And I have used MSBuild for a long time in Rhino Tools >>>> I used the same generate assemblyinfo approach, you can still find it in >>>> the SVN archives. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Davy Brion <ral...@davybrion.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi guys, >>>>> >>>>> i'm trying to get everything up and running on the buildserver, and >>>>> nant is causing some problems with regards to easily being able to run >>>>> tests >>>>> for various database configurations. >>>>> >>>>> Seeing as how the nant build scripts are way too complex (at least for >>>>> my taste), i propose we move to a simpler msbuild script. I have some >>>>> experience with msbuild, and while it's not perfect i do think it's >>>>> simpler >>>>> than nant. >>>>> >>>>> Would there be any objections from any of you with regards to moving to >>>>> msbuild? >>>>> >>>>> There would be one breaking-change though... currently, none of our >>>>> projects have an AssemblyInfo.cs file because nant creates it (i'm told to >>>>> make sure that each AssemblyInfo.cs file contains the same versioning >>>>> information). I've never used that approach with msbuild, but there are >>>>> msbuild tasks available to keep the versioning information in synch across >>>>> projects. So if we do go ahead with this, we would have to add an >>>>> AssemblyInfo.cs file to each project again. >>>>> >>>>> Other than that, i think we can create a pretty simple script to build >>>>> the project, run the tests (for whatever database configuration you'd >>>>> like) >>>>> and once that's working we can add automated binary and source packaging >>>>> to >>>>> the mix as well. >>>>> >>>>> So, any objections? Or other suggestions? >>>>> >>>>> brs, >>>>> Davy >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Dario Quintana >> http://darioquintana.com.ar >> > >
