cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Carsten Ziegeler" <cziege...@s-und-n.de>
Subject RE: excluding unstable blocks by default
Date Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:30:01 GMT
Upayavira wrote:
> 
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> 
> >Upayavira wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>To my mind, Mark makes some interesting points here. Could 
> we get away 
> >>from using a simple include/exclude, and have:
> >>
> >>build stable      <-- only stable stuff
> >>build unstable   <-- stable and unstable
> >>build webapp   <-- only stable stuff
> >>
> >>Or better:
> >>
> >>configure stable      <-- only stable stuff
> >>configure unstable   <-- stable and unstable
> >>configure webapp   <-- only stable stuff
> >>
> >>That way, it isn't much work to get the unstable stuff, but 
> you've got 
> >>to ask for it.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >And you mean, build webapp is an alias for build stable, right.
> >I would prefer "build xyz".
> >  
> >
> The build webapp as an alias was the weakest bit of my 
> suggestion - aimed at lending _some_ backwards compatibility.
> 
> If we do build webapp as an alias of build unstable, people 
> could just carry on as they are, without noticing any change. 
> Now, perhaps that is in fact a good thing. People who know of 
> build webapp, and know its behaviour, get what they expect. 
> Whereas new users, who read the docs, get to choose between 
> stable and unstable. Then there's the question of which 
> target to make default, if any.
> 
Sorry, I realize that my response was (again) way too short.
I think it's absolutely ok to have build webapp as an alias
for build stable.
And I meant that I prefer "build xyz" over "configure xyz" :)

Sorry
Carsten


Mime
View raw message