Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <20040112193153.83961.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:31:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Tim Larson <timlarsonwork@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Build broken?
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

[Sorry for the delay...I have been mostly off the list for
the last few days because my mail box is full and dropping
messages.  To fix this, I have purchased a virtual server
account and will have a new email address within a few days.]

How can we solve this the best?  It should be possible to
exclude the docs from a build, but how should this interact
with webapp docs and doc validation?

We could display a message (instead of building) that says
why the build config is inconsistent, or we could have one
of the config settings override the others (e.g. have
exclude.documentation=true prevent validation of docs, even
if the config has validation is otherwise turned on).
Of course there are other combinations possible as well.

Another option is to leave the build code as is (needs to
be tested) and just document the dependencies between the
config options with comments in the config files.  This
would allow the docs to be validated in a separate run of
the build system from the build that created the docs.

I will be glad to fix this after we decide what behaviour
we want implemented.

WDYT?
--Tim Larson

PS: I do not think "fault" matters here, but I pry it away
from Antonio anyway because I did not think through the
consequences for handling inconsistent configuration choices.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus