Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <409FBE5C.70904@leverageweb.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 13:39:40 -0400
From: Geoff Howard <cocoon@leverageweb.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file
References: <31DF72A980E5D511B48C000102BD8685061DB3DB@calexc01.diginsite.com>
In-Reply-To: <31DF72A980E5D511B48C000102BD8685061DB3DB@calexc01.diginsite.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

+1 from me - I didn't know why it was that way either and just left things as I 
found them whenever I've touched it.  This task goes back pretty far though IIRC 
- maybe there was a forgotten reason?

Geoff

Ralph Goers wrote:

> I had thought about doing this in my last update to XConfToolTask, but I
> didn't want to add two features in one patch.
> 
> Doing this could actually be pretty easy.  Currently, it looks at the root
> node and grabs info from it. It would be pretty easy to see if the child
> nodes are some sort of "patch" node, and if so iterate through them getting
> the info that would normally be on the root node from each patch node
> instead.
> 
> It would be nice to do this as you could put related patches in one file.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Claas Thiele [mailto:cthiele@ct42.de] 
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 9:00 AM
> To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
> Subject: XConfToolTask and more than one patch action per file
> 
> Whats the reason for having one patch action per patchfile only?
> 
> Using filesets the execution order of the patches is not predictable and 
> so it is a hell writing more complex patches.
> 
> Would it be a good idea having a set of actions in one patchfile like 
> xupdate has?
> 
> 
> Claas
> 
> 
>