Mailing-List: contact ant-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Sender: dcorbin
Message-ID: <3A425153.FC90BFA2@machturtle.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:52:03 -0500
From: David Corbin <dcorbin@machturtle.com>
Organization: Mach Turtle Technologies
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ant-user@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: Thinking about Source Control
References: <FABBF873F68ED311BB35009027D390723E2853@darth_bobo.eTapestry.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Scott Ganyo wrote:
> 
> I use StarTeam and here's how I would like to integrate SCM with the build
> process (I just haven't gotten around to it yet):
> 
> 1) Create an SCM label for the build.
> 2) Check out project source at the label made in #1.

What if your checkout changes your build.xml?

> 3) Build project.
> 4) Check in a .war file.
> 5) Attach .war file to previously created label.

Ick!  While I won't say I NEVER violate this rule, the S in SCM stands
for "source".  I don't like to put anything that is generatable into
source control.

> 6) Promote label to next Promotion level.
> 
> Scott
> 
> P.S. Why have you regretted the integration of the two?

It has usually turned out to be a real headache to get it to work
correctly (see above (2)).  Also, in the circumstance you describe, I'm
working on a specific/known system (i.e., the source hasn't been
distributed).  In that case, I'd just make script of some type that does
the steps you're looking for, as Ant's platform independence isn't
necessary.

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Corbin [mailto:dcorbin@machturtle.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 11:40 AM
> > To: ant-user@jakarta.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Thinking about Source Control
> >
> >
> > Fair enough.  But I'm still curious what people want to do
> > with SCM, in
> > the build system.  Every time I've tried to integrate the two, I've
> > regretted it.
> >
> > Douglas Melzer wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd prefer to have an implementation that fully addresses a
> > particular SCM tool's capabilities.
> > >
> > > My project has just switched from Visual Source Safe to a
> > proprietary SCM tool and it wasn't that big of deal to update
> > my ant build configuration.
> > >
> > > My experience is that most companies adopt a particular SCM
> > tool, so I believe greater emphasis should be placed upon
> > fully supporting an SCM tool's capabilities as opposed to
> > trying to identify the common features.
> > >
> > > While some common terms for checkin, checkout, etc. could
> > be identified many of the command options are going to vary
> > with the particular SCM tool. Having these options retain the
> > naming conventions of the particular SCM tool will make it
> > much easier to refer back to SCM tool documentation when necessary.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Corbin [mailto:dcorbin@machturtle.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 10:02 AM
> > > To: ant-user@jakarta.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Thinking about Source Control
> > >
> > > How do people want to use source control from within ANT.
> > I can think
> > > of several ways, and some are very "bad" and others perhaps
> > not.  While
> > > it might not be possible to unify all SCMs, perhaps if we
> > discover what
> > > it is people are trying to achieve, a common subset can be found.
> > > --
> > > David Corbin
> > > Mach Turtle Technologies, Inc.
> > > http://www.machturtle.com
> > > dcorbin@machturtle.com
> >
> > --
> > David Corbin
> > Mach Turtle Technologies, Inc.
> > http://www.machturtle.com
> > dcorbin@machturtle.com
> >

-- 
David Corbin 		
Mach Turtle Technologies, Inc.
http://www.machturtle.com
dcorbin@machturtle.com