Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of omuppi1@gmail.com designates
 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: omuppi1@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALorpXeq_F_+mXZoGaWHmn7J6kwUHyWrK4L5-L+qNaxxsu9xDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOs5KJg5O2SE2qh57sZfmPuHfV=mAAs5uk5ECJf6AAHAeQPbVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5033D34A.4060400@dot-com-it.com>
 <CALorpXeq_F_+mXZoGaWHmn7J6kwUHyWrK4L5-L+qNaxxsu9xDg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Om <bigosmallm@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:03:43 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CACK5iZdWW8kbYf_g-mY10+cXy45R39c6As7Ku8cEiD+tvax7UQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Should .project, .flexLibProperties, and .actionScriptProperties
 be checked in to source control? (Was: svn commit: r1375263 [1/2] - in
 /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects)
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec555565084ed6d04c7cdce8d

--bcaec555565084ed6d04c7cdce8d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicholas@spoon.as>wrote:

> I agree with what Jeffery brought up from the previous thread. My deal is
> if it is in the source control, and I need to make changes to my
> environment that are made in these files, there is a very real chance those
> changes get committed back to the svn. Conversely, if somebody makes a
> change to the 'generic' file, do I have to overwrite my changes to my IDE
> settings in order to get the rest of the changeset in place?  It just
> starts getting really messy, particular for those IDE settings files that
> would be project or computer specific.
>
>
I agree that it will get clumsy.  But if I have project/source path/swc
library dependencies and compiler arguments, how will I let other know
about this?  List everything in a README?  Then there is a very good chance
that the README will get out of sync with the project over the course of
time.

IMHO, a little bit of clumsiness is fine because it makes it so much easier
to share and set up projects.  Once again, lowering the barrier to
contribute to Apache Flex.

Thanks,
Om


>
> -Nick
> On Aug 21, 2012 2:28 PM, "Jeffry Houser" <jeffry@dot-com-it.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >  Last time this came up; the decision leaned towards:
> >
> > "You can do what you want in your whiteboard; but don't commit project
> > files anywhere else."
> >
> >  Sometimes it just makes things harder; and projects are not always
> easily
> > transferable between machines.
> >
> > On 8/21/2012 11:14 AM, Jeff Conrad wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Carol,
> >>
> >> I think Justin's question was more oriented around what's the best
> >> practice for checking in .project, .flexLibProperties, and
> >> .actionScriptProperties files?  Should they be included in source
> >> control or ignored?
> >>
> >> I took a peek at some of the files included and they contain some
> >> important information that would make any potential contributor's job
> >> easy.  For instance, in projects/framework/.**actionScriptProperties,
> >> there are a ton of additional compiler arguments that if I had to put
> >> into every project like that, I'd go crazy:
> >>
> >>   additionalCompilerArguments="-**keep-as3-metadata=Bindable,**
> >> Managed,ChangeEvent,**NonCommittingChangeEvent,**Transient
> >> -load-config+=framework-**config.xml
> >> --include-file=defaults.css,..**/defaults.css
> >> -include-file=defaults-3.0.0.**css,../defaults-3.0.0.css
> >> -include-file=Assets.swf,../**assets/Assets.swf
> >> -include-file=assets/**CalendarIcon.png,../assets/**CalendarIcon.png
> >> -namespace=library://ns.adobe.**com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml<
> http://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml>
> >> -namespace+=http://www.adobe.**com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml<
> http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml>
> >> -resource-bundle-list=bundles.**properties -library-path= -locale="
> >>
> >> I'm in favor of either keeping this information in source control.  I
> >> don't want to have to remember all of that to make sure I'm building
> >> the SDK correctly.
> >>
> >> I suppose the other question that has to be asked, though, is whether
> >> or not Flash Builder would be making different SWCs than the ant
> >> scripts or where all of that information is included.  It looks like
> >> the ant scripts set the same arguments directly in the build.xml file.
> >>
> >> When someone gets time, maybe we can move all those arguments to
> >> framework-config.xml file and have both the .actionScriptProperties
> >> and build.xml file reference those so it's more DRY?  I'll do it
> >> sometime this week, but someone is more than welcome to beat me to it.
> >>
> >> Does anyone know if there's a quirk in the compiler that causes
> >> information set in a flex-config.xml file to be ignored by either the
> >> Ant or Flash Builder?  If it's a bug in the compiler, I'll just leave
> >> well enough alone until after Falcon.
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Carol Frampton <cframpto@adobe.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It loos like lots of newlines got introduced but no code changes other
> >>> than the headers.  I hink I'll rollback the commit and do it again.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for pointing that out.  I usually diff my changes before
> >>> committing
> >>> them but I obviously didn't this time.
> >>>
> >>> Carol
> >>>
> >>> On 8/20/12 6 :12PM, "Justin Mclean" <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Noticed the ".project", ".actionScriptProperties" and
> >>>> ".flexLibProperties" mark marked as modified. Are they spposed to be
> >>>> checked in?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Justin
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
>

--bcaec555565084ed6d04c7cdce8d--