Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Am 20.04.2011 09:30, schrieb Jerome Renard:
I would say the main problem with Ant is there is no loops and
conditionals
I have never needed programming structures like that in my build
automation scripts. But I think I understand where the problem is: you
are
Am 20.04.2011 09:30, schrieb Jerome Renard:
I would say the main problem with Ant is there is no loops and
conditionals
I have never needed programming structures like that in my build
automation scripts. But I think I understand where the problem is: you
are trying to use a build
Jerome Renard wrote:
Hello,
I started to test Pake in the context of AZC.
You can get the Pakefile if you svn up website/
You may also browse the file here:
-
https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/zetacomponents/website/Pakefile?r=1091818
As you will see it is quite simple et much more
Gaetano,
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Gaetano Giunta
giunta.gaet...@gmail.com wrote:
Jerome Renard jero...@apache.org wrote on 14/04/2011 11:11:
[...]
I believe you can define environment variables on Windows:
-
On 04/14/2011 11:36 AM, Jerome Renard wrote:
I still prefer cli options than env vars for 90% of the time though, as it's
easier to understand what is happening when the options are explicit.
But, as far as I can see in your code, what you can do is that you can swap
out one config file with
Tobias Schlitt wrote:
On 04/14/2011 11:36 AM, Jerome Renard wrote:
I still prefer cli options than env vars for 90% of the time though, as it's
easier to understand what is happening when the options are explicit.
But, as far as I can see in your code, what you can do is that you can swap
out
Hi Alexey,
thanks for your feedback.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Alexey Zakhlestin indey...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Any feedback welcome :)
line 30:
I'd use pake_echo_comment() instead. same for other similar lines
Fixed.
lines 94-117:
1) I'd use pake_sh($command, true)
Fixed.
Hi There,
The debate we got earlier [1] on this list after I posted a very early
version of the
Ant based build script showed that we were possibly going in the wrong
direction.
After chatting on IRC we realized that (some statements might look
obvious to you):
1. the actual Makefile is hard to
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Gaetano Giunta
giunta.gaet...@gmail.com wrote:
As I proposed pake in the 1szt place, no need to assert any more that I like
it enough.
+1 from here as well. We use Pake anyway for Midgard packaging and
installation. So at least Zeta Components have already
- is not XML based (Derick will appreciate that :P)
probably the only one ;-)
I will try to give Pake a try as soon as possible. But if one of you
already has experience with
Phing or Pake I would be happy to get your feedback about these tools :)
I have no experience and no preference with
Christian Grobmeier wrote:
- is not XML based (Derick will appreciate that :P)
probably the only one ;-)
Not sure if this is a joke, but xml simply has to die (TM).
I will try to give Pake a try as soon as possible. But if one of you
already has experience with
Phing or Pake I would be happy
- is not XML based (Derick will appreciate that :P)
probably the only one ;-)
Not sure if this is a joke, but xml simply has to die (TM).
No joke. And XML has some good benefits. I don't want it to die.
Probably I am oldschool.
Not a good doc by any stretch, but to hit the ground running:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Christian Grobmeier
grobme...@gmail.com wrote:
And while we are at it, consider to join the incubator.apache.org with
pake. I am pretty sure there are some supporters around.
I wouldn't mind seeing Pake and some other stuff from Alexey - like
the AppServer in
13 matches
Mail list logo
