Tim Ellison wrote: > Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: >> Tim Ellison wrote: >>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: >>>> Tim Ellison wrote: >>>>> Since we want to keep ARCHIVE working throughout we can create a branch >>>>> if you think the pack200 dev will be dangerous (I think we can handle it >>>>> in-place, but whatever). >>>> Why a branch? can it just be out of the mainline build? IOW, excluded >>>> for everyone else in the build? >>> ARCHIVE is already in the mainline build and contains jar/zip support, >>> we don't want to exclude that. >> That wasn't what I meant. I meant excluding the single file(s) that >> cause the problem. > > Well you /could/ but I would claim that is not very desirable, since we > would have to back out some changes in the existing built code for > pack200, convince each IDE that not all files in the src/main were to be > compiled, remember that there is an out-of-line set of files for archive > etc. Sounds like a form of branching without really doing it. > > ...but I expect that we won't need any of this, I'm sure Alex can cope ;-)
Would be a nifty feature - to tell your IDE to ignore a file... > > Alex: can you send what you have done so far? > >>>> (Or just make Alex keep it working :) >>> That would be my preference -- the committer that applies the patch and >>> the continuous build can check win/linux compilation. If 'keeping it >>> working' is too onerous, then branch. >> Or get help :) > > Of course! > > Regards, > Tim > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
