[nant-dev] jetbrains and new c# IDE

2003-10-10 Thread Ian MacLean
http://www.eugenebelyaev.com/begblog/general/50.html Implemented as an addin to VS.net which could prove to be interesting if : 1) they replace the existing c# project system with somthing a bit nicer and 2) that project system allows you to use an alternative build tool ( ie NAnt )

Re: [nant-dev] jetbrains and new c# IDE

2003-10-10 Thread Gert Driesen
WOW ! I hope they can bring some of the magic of IDEA to .NET !!! Gert - Original Message - From: Ian MacLean [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 8:24 AM Subject: [nant-dev] jetbrains and new c# IDE

Re: [nant-dev] Licensing

2003-10-10 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Gert Driesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: unless there's a slight chance that Apache is going to accept .NET projects :-) At the risk of repeating myself, I'm sure that the ASF would not reject a project just because it used .NET. The ASF hosts projects written in C, Perl,

Re: [nant-dev] C++ project support in solution

2003-10-10 Thread Ian MacLean
Dmitry, Sorry about the slow response. I took at look at your Visual cpp support. There were a couple of formatting/ code style issue which I have fixed - nothing major. However I'm getting lots of null reference errors related to fileConfigs ie when you have extra compiler settings (

Re: [nant-dev] jetbrains and new c# IDE

2003-10-10 Thread Ian MacLean
Especially when you look at the new features in IDEA 4.0 http://www.intellij.com/idea/features4 I'm going to stop now. I don't want to seem like a marketing drone for jetbrains. Ian WOW ! I hope they can bring some of the magic of IDEA to .NET !!! Gert - Original Message - From:

Re: [nant-dev] Licensing

2003-10-10 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003, Matthew Mastracci [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure that I agree with changing the license to a BSD or Apache-style license. As you are responding to a mail of mine, please note that I've just explained some things about different licenses and what would be involved

Re: [nant-dev] Licensing

2003-10-10 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Mitch Denny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have one question about the wording though. The section Redistribution and USE (my emphasis) in source and binary forms. Does this mean that if I build a set of tasks and compile them into a separate assembly, but don't ship the NAnt

Re: [nant-dev] Licensing

2003-10-10 Thread Martin Aliger
Hi all, I do not bother about licences much but: NAnt works well as a GPL'd project. It's effectively a stand-alone project. Any company wanting to incorporate it could simply bundle the executable. You cannot write a NAnt task that uses parts of NAnt's API and distribute that task

Re: Re[4]: [nant-dev] onFail patch

2003-10-10 Thread Martin Aliger
I like onFail attribute slightly better then current nant.onfailure. Setting some special property looks little weird for me. But it is enough for most projects, I think. Martin Hello Gert, such a task does really makes sense, still, I feel we have two (a bit) different approaches to solve

Re: [nant-dev] Problems with zip and fileset tasks

2003-10-10 Thread Martin Aliger
As for fileset re-definitions - we allow properties to be re-defined to it probably makes sense to do the same for datatype references. If we agree that this is the desired behaviour I'll add the change. Maybe defaults to throw BuildError (instead of Internal Error) and enable override=true

Re[6]: [nant-dev] onFail patch

2003-10-10 Thread Ivan Tarasov
So, the question is: should I start developing the trycatch task and also leave the onFail part for targets? Have anybody really analyzed the way in which I've done onfail -- do you have some claims on its implementation? Also, how should I address the problem of getting log only for the part

Re: [nant-dev] Licensing

2003-10-10 Thread Brant Carter
I think we should ask ourselves what types of uses we would want NAnt to be available to. Here are two scenarios. [1] A commerical company wants to release a custom task and charge money for it. Do we want to allow this? [2] A commerical company wants to distribute a customized version of

Re: [nant-dev] Licensing

2003-10-10 Thread Scott Hernandez
All of these scenarios should be allowed, IMHO. - Original Message - From: Brant Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [nant-dev] Licensing I think we should ask ourselves what types of uses we would want NAnt to be

Re: [nant-dev] Licensing

2003-10-10 Thread Scott Hernandez
- Original Message - From: Matthew Mastracci [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ian MacLean wrote: Matt, what are your specific objections to a BSD style licence ? Is it the greater permissiveness or just that its not GPL ? My largest concern is not that a company can use BSD-code, but rather

Re: [nant-dev] Licensing

2003-10-10 Thread Matthew Mastracci
I agree, though in [2] and [3] I believe that changes (if any) to the core NAnt code should be contributed back. Scott Hernandez wrote: All of these scenarios should be allowed, IMHO. - Original Message - From: Brant Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October

Re: [nant-dev] Licensing

2003-10-10 Thread Matthew Mastracci
While replying to your note, I noticed the following on our license page: http://nant.sourceforge.net/license.html --- NAnt ships with a prebuilt version of NDoc. The NAnt license does not apply to these components located in the bin folder of the distribution. NDoc is licensed under the GNU

[nant-dev] Re: [Nant-users] ResGenTask problem

2003-10-10 Thread Gert Driesen
] ResGenTask problem Seems to bug introdused in last night build 20031010 with 20031007 all work fine [solution] - C:\Core\res\strings.ru-RU.resx [solution] ResGenTask Input: C:\Core\res\strings.ru-RU.resx Output: C:\DOCUME~1\amid\LOCALS~1\Temp\hi771plq