lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Cutting <DCutt...@grandcentral.com>
Subject RE: cvs commit: jakarta-lucene build.xml
Date Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:48:42 GMT
We should remove build.properties from CVS.  Then things will be consistent.

Separately we should resolve whether to add a default.properties file.
Personally, I don't have a strong feeling about this.  If forced to vote,
I'd currently vote for leaving the defaults in build.xml, but I won't object
if the majority wish to move default values to a default.properties file.

Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:otis_gospodnetic@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:01 AM
> To: Lucene Developers List
> Subject: Re: cvs commit: jakarta-lucene build.xml
> 
> 
> That build.properties in CVS looking like it is always used (because
> it's not called .sample or something such) looks like it would confuse
> people ("I changed XYZ in build.properties, but it didn't take effect.
> Why?"), that's what I was referring to when I said half-baked.
> In any case, I'll wait to hear some more opinions.
> 
> Otis
> 
> --- Erik Hatcher <lists@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Otis Gospodnetic" <otis_gospodnetic@yahoo.com>
> > 
> > > I do think having defaults in build.xml and not 
> build.properties is
> > > better than having defaults in build.properties and that using
> > > build.properties for overriding defaults instead of changing
> > build.xml
> > > is better (simpler for people to do, less error prone, requires
> > less
> > > knowledge).
> > 
> > I think there is some confusion.  *Never* have Jon or I suggested
> > anything
> > about build.xml being edited.  It should *never* be edited by an end
> > user
> > just simply wanting to build Lucene from source code.  The 
> discussion
> > is
> > over best practices: whether properties should be in the 
> build.xml or
> > default.properties.  Neither of those should be edited by this
> > end-user.
> > For someone to build and change the destination of the 
> output, he/she
> > would
> > simply create a build.properties (in both Jon and I's 
> scheme) and set
> > that
> > one property.  That is all.
> > 
> > > It would be good if others could share their opinions and 
> votes, so
> > > that I can move things out of the half-baked state on build in the
> > CVS
> > > repository.
> > 
> > Whats half-baked about it?  Properties are in build.xml now, right? 
> > Is
> > there still a build.properties?  That won't matter given that the
> > properties
> > are the same value and Ant has property immutability.  But if
> > build.properties is still there, I recommend just removing it or
> > renaming
> > it.  And certainly Jon's scheme is fine if you choose do so - rename
> > build.properties to default.properties, and remove the properties I
> > added in
> > build.xml.  (keep in mind that I renamed a property or two so that
> > the demo
> > WAR and my docweb WAR had unique descriptive properties).
> > 
> >     Erik
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
<mailto:lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message