[nant-dev] Re: NAnt contribution

2003-12-19 Thread Gerry Shaw
Thanks Sean, in the future send these types of email to the nant-dev list. On 18-Dec-03, at 11:43 AM, Foy, Sean wrote: I recently found that NAnt could not build one of my solutions using the solution task and, finding nothing in the bugs database, decided to do something about it. My project

[nant-dev] EE + types support [was SUBMISSION: Path Task]

2003-12-19 Thread Martin Aliger
Hi, PS. Sorry if I sometimes sound negative about expression support ... I really like and appreciate what you've done so far, but I just want to be sure we're doing the right thing and not let you guys get carried away in your enthousiasm too fast :-) But I agree that its really exciting

Re: [nant-dev] EE + types support [was SUBMISSION: Path Task]

2003-12-19 Thread Jaroslaw Kowalski
3/ I'm also thinking about fileset support. Could be possible to extend relation between tasks/types/functions? I mean, many tasks now use filesets. What about functions? Could be nice in some cases... E.g.: fileset id='f1'!-- define fileset -- includeList ... /fileset ... foreach

Re: [nant-dev] EE + types support [was SUBMISSION: Path Task]

2003-12-19 Thread Jaroslaw Kowalski
BTW. Expression support is in the latest daily build, so you should be able to try it out. It's also in CVS HEAD now. You can play with functions and fileset support. It could be an interesting addition to NAnt. Jarek - Original Message - From: Jaroslaw Kowalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:

[nant-dev] Fwd: NAnt contribution

2003-12-19 Thread Gerry Shaw
Bah, reply strips attachments... Here is the attachment for the fix from Sean Foy. nant-interop-fix.zip Description: Zip archive

[nant-dev] Re: Will there be a nAnt-0.84rc2 and final before the end of the year?

2003-12-19 Thread Matthew Mastracci
Gert - are we branched for 0.84? I have some minor checkins I'm itching to get in for the 0.85. I can also look at some solution cleanups over my vacation time in the next few weeks. Gert Driesen wrote: - Original Message - From: Scott Hernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Morris, Jason

[nant-dev] Re: Adding XML support to foreach or new task

2003-12-19 Thread Matthew Mastracci
Scott Hernandez wrote: This sounds interesting. Maybe we would want to introduce some xpathselection elements to replace your property example. Properties in this example would probably be a little confusing to the user since it isn't really a regular property (the value is retrieved via xpath,

Re: [nant-dev] Re: Will there be a nAnt-0.84rc2 and final before the end of the year?

2003-12-19 Thread Scott Hernandez
I am not Gert, but we are branched for the .84 release Please check new features into cvs (HEAD) and fixes for the release into the .84 branch. - Original Message - From: Matthew Mastracci [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Gert Driesen [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nant-Developers (E-mail) [EMAIL

[nant-dev] basedir semantics change?

2003-12-19 Thread Matthew Mastracci
Has somebody modified the project basedir semantics? The latest CVS version isn't working correctly for me. It's acting as if the basedir attribute wasn't specified. I'll try to find out the date that it was busted, but I'm curious if anyone remembers changing anything to do with this. This

Re: [nant-dev] basedir semantics change?

2003-12-19 Thread Jaroslaw Kowalski
Hi Matt. Can you please check that it's not expression evaluator that's causing the problem (it was recently added to CVS/nightly build). There's a new option disable-ee that can be used to revert to the old behaviour. Jarek - Original Message - From: Matthew Mastracci [EMAIL

[nant-dev] basedir changes

2003-12-19 Thread Matthew Mastracci
Well, with additional investigation, it appears that the problem is that something has broken the includesList element in my build file. My build files are structured like so: \build\scripts\nightly.build basedir=. \build\scripts\project1.build basedir=../.. It seems as if project1.build is

[nant-dev] Basedir changes - possible problems

2003-12-19 Thread Matthew Mastracci
So it looks like the recent basedir changes have revealed a long-standing issue w.r.t. assumptions about the current directory. It turns out that there are a few places where the tasks assume that the project's base directory is the same as the current directory. The two big ones I've found