-1 as well. this does not bring us nothing good... 2012/8/23 Ryan Frishberg <fri...@gmail.com>
> -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 <bigosma...@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" <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 > > > >>> > >>>> > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 35 57 77 <http://www.codeoscopic.com> CODEOSCOPIC S.A. <http://www.codeoscopic.com> Avd. del General Perón, 32 Planta 10, Puertas P-Q 28020 Madrid
