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" <mba...@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 <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 >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> > > >> > >>
