Sounds like a good plan, especially since we have most of the code just
sitting there in a git repo. We've been talking abou it for ages and seems
like now is the time to actually do it!
Thanks
Angus Turner
angusisf...@gmail.com
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Michael MacFadden <
michael.macfa
So that's two reasons to push the switch to maven in before the release.
Do we want to do that? It will solve the Jars issue to.
~Michael
On 6/21/13 4:12 PM, "Upayavira" wrote:
>Switching to Maven would give us mvn eclipse:eclipse which would
>generate these files for us. We could do the same
Switching to Maven would give us mvn eclipse:eclipse which would
generate these files for us. We could do the same with Ant, but that
would no doubt take some work.
Upayavira
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013, at 09:52 AM, Yuri Z wrote:
> They are committed to SVN
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Up
They are committed to SVN
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> Are te Eclipse classpath and project files committed into SVN, or are
> they generated by ant?
>
> I'd expect there to be an 'ant eclipse' target that generates them,
> hence no license headers.
>
> Upayavira
>
> On
Are te Eclipse classpath and project files committed into SVN, or are
they generated by ant?
I'd expect there to be an 'ant eclipse' target that generates them,
hence no license headers.
Upayavira
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013, at 08:57 PM, Ali Lown wrote:
> I suspect that license comment is the problem.
I suspect that license comment is the problem.
(I don't use eclipse so simply checked that it looked valid after
mass-addittion of the licenses).
Commit the fix. (Though this may indicate an upstream bug if eclipse can't
handle comments).
Ali
On 19 Jun 2013 20:52, "Yuri Z" wrote:
> I am having
