Unfortunately, people treat our qtests as examples (especially given that they are categorized under the examples directory). I agree for things that are purely examples we should use the PUT-GUID-HERE thing. Its the qtests I don't know what to do with (I really wish people wouldn't look at them but they do have the most coverage of various authoring concepts).
What are your thoughts on a warning for omitting the Product/@Id attribute? Derek -----Original Message----- From: Rob Mensching [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 10:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Bob Arnson' Cc: 'DEÁK JAHN Gábor'; 'WiX-users'; 'Rob Mensching' Subject: RE: [WiX-users] rfc: Package element changes All examples should use "PUT-GUID-HERE". You get a nice error message from the compiler and it's pretty self explanatory. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Derek Cicerone Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 8:57 AM To: 'Bob Arnson' Cc: 'DEÁK JAHN Gábor'; 'WiX-users'; 'Rob Mensching' Subject: Re: [WiX-users] rfc: Package element changes Hmm, that's a very good point. I'm just trying to address Rob's concern that a developer wouldn't understand what it means to generate the guid. Honestly, I'd be more worried about them copying a setup with a guid and failing to modify it (thus introducing collisions for users). It almost argues for us to always omit the guid in our examples in which case we'd then have to somehow educate the user that they should set a guid if they copied one of our examples. Now I'm all confused :) Derek -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Arnson Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 8:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'DEÁK JAHN Gábor'; 'Rob Mensching'; 'WiX-users' Subject: Re: [WiX-users] rfc: Package element changes Derek Cicerone wrote: > I've done some more thinking about this. I think Rob's main objection with > making Product/@Id optional was that someone might accidentally forget > to specify it. However, what if we displayed a warning to the user > whenever they omitted the Property/@Id attribute informing them that > doing so is non-standard and would result in generating a new > ProductCode for each build > - thus making it impossible to do anything other than major upgrades. > Why should that be a warning? -- sig://boB http://bobs.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ WiX-users mailing list WiX-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-users ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ WiX-users mailing list WiX-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-users ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ WiX-users mailing list WiX-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wix-users
