incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Frishberg <fri...@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 22:42:16 GMT
-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
> > >>> > >>>>
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> >
>

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