> > 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" <cfram...@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" <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 > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >
