incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Baird <mba...@kairyt.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 Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:05:50 GMT
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