incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Rovira <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.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 22:49:41 GMT
-1 as well. this does not bring us nothing good...

2012/8/23 Ryan Frishberg <frishy@gmail.com>

> -1 to this change as well.  I really think that the FB project files should
> continue to be in source control.
>
> -Ryan
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Om <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > 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
> > > >>> > >>>>
> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F:  +34 912 35 57 77
<http://www.codeoscopic.com>
CODEOSCOPIC S.A. <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
Avd. del General Perón, 32
Planta 10, Puertas P-Q
28020 Madrid

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