The nightly builds can be downloaded from
http://ccnetlive.thoughtworks.com/CCNet-builds/.


Craig

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Zachary Young
Sent: Monday, 19 January 2009 3:12 p.m.
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ccnet-user] Re: Can ccservice return complete config XML


Thanks Craig,

I love the new -validate switch on ccnet.exe. Saves so much time! I'll  
try the new tool you mentioned, just as soon as I find the SVN repos  
for CC.NET, which is eluding me.

Can you give men the link, please? I've been to the CC.NET download  
page and the SVN Repository link takes me to the ViewVC page. Can't  
seem to find the plain SVN URL.

Thanks,
Zach


On Jan 18, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Craig & Sammi Sutherland wrote:

>
> Hi Zach,
>
> ccservice doesn't have this capacity at the moment - at the best it  
> can only
> return one project at a time.
>
> However for the 1.4.3 release we have added a new tool that will allow
> validation of the configuration. This tool also displays the  
> configuration
> before and after preprocessing, so it might be what you're after.
>
> To get this download the latest nightly build and install it - the  
> tool is
> called CCValidator.
>
>
> Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:ccnet- 
> [email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Zachary Young
> Sent: Monday, 19 January 2009 2:45 p.m.
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [ccnet-user] Can ccservice return complete config XML
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Can ccservice, through RemoteCruiseManagerFactory or some other way,
> return a completely built representation of the config XML. Now that
> I'm using cb:include with 1.4, I can't easily use XSL to report on
> variables like trigger times across all 10 projects in my  
> ccnet.config.
>
> If ccservice were able to expose a completely built representation of
> the XML, I could reuse the XSL I already have with very few
> modifications (as opposed to trying to implement a custom XInclude for
> the preprocessor syntax).
>
> Thanks,
> Zach
>

Reply via email to