incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Om <bigosma...@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)
Date Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:44:10 GMT
>
> If the decision is made that these files should be moved out of the
> frameworks directory and into the ide/flashbuilder sub-directory then a
> JIRA issue should be entered so someone can take ownership of this task.
> If this is done I think there needs to be some mechanism of copying the
> files back into a sdk structure.  Something similar could be done for
> IntelliJ files or whatever other IDEs are used.
>
>

-1 to this change.  Let us please not add any more complexity (yet) to the
dev workflow.

Thanks,
Om


>  Carol
>
>
> On 8/22/12 9 :30AM, "Carol Frampton" <cframpto@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >Frankly I don't see what the big deal is.  These files have been there
> >since day 1.  They were set up carefully (not by me).  They are
> >OS-independent and work no matter where the SDK is.  If I hadn't screwed
> >up the headers and then screwed up fixing them this thread wouldn't exist.
> > There are hidden files (at least on OSX) so you don't even see them
> >unless you go looking and right now they aren't in the source distro.
> >
> >It is already a pain in the neck to do development because we can't have
> >all the Adobe stuff in the tree.  Now you are telling me to debug any, I
> >need to build the combined tree, and then create and edit 20+ files in 10+
> >directories before I can do anything.  I am not a lover of FB but for now
> >it is what I know best.  If you don't want to use them don't use them.
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >On 8/21/12 7 :05PM, "Michael Baird" <mbaird@kairyt.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Rather than a readme, how about <file>.sample? .project.sample,
> >>.actionScriptProperties.sample, etc...
> >>Then it becomes more apparent these are environment-specific samples and
> >>dont carry the maintenance weight of a thorough readme.
> >>
> >>Imagine also .project.mac.sample, .project.linux.sample, etc, for
> >>platform-specific settings, too.
> >>
> >>On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Om <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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
> >>> > >>>>
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message