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 <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicho...@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" <jef...@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 <cfram...@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" <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> Noticed the ".project", ".actionScriptProperties" and > > >>>> ".flexLibProperties" mark marked as modified. Are they spposed to be > > >>>> checked in? > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> Justin > > >>>> > > >>> > > > > > >
