> > Clayton was wondering if we could use > Gump write a pre-defined include file [it does something
> similar when
> > it run Maven]. Does this idea have legs? Will it work for
> compiles and
> > tests?
>
> I don't think it would work for tests. Can you specify the
> path to nunit.core.dll
> I don't know exactly what you're trying to achieve with Gump, but IMO
things
> are much easier than you think if you fully utilize NAnt's potential.
Yeah, I think we need to step back and make that clear.
Gump is attempting to emulate a "rabid" OSS developer, perform the steps a
developer woul
--- Original Message -
From: "Adam R. B. Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] NAnt and Gump -- getting closer...
&g
> The script would need to know which framework you intend to use. For
> the Bourne shell script this simply means something like
>
> #!/bin/sh
> mono bin/NAnt.exe
>
> (ignoring Rotor and DotGNU for now) but the Windows batch file is a
> different beast.
We could set a Gump parameter in the work
> > BTW: Ought we attempt to contribute metadata for the mini-nant up to
> > nant projects (including log4net, etc.) and see if we can get that
> > working from within Gump? I think that makes a good first goal.
>
> I don't understand that, sorry. Are you asking whether we should try
> log4net fi
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Adam R. B. Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the answer is 'who decides what is the right approach', and
> I feel it is the NAnt team.
Yes, I agree. We may need to explain in more detail what we want to
do and why we want to do that with Gump, but we need the expertiz
All,
I think I led Clayton down a false path, by me not knowing that bin/NAnt.exe
was "mini NAnt". (Sorry Clayton, you kept saying bin/NAnt.exe and I was
clueless since (to me) that just seemed like a built NAnt, I didn't know it
was mini-NAnt pre-stored in CVS.) All ... I am struggling here 'cos
