Committed in r796137. Daniel
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Martin Grotzke < martin.grot...@javakaffee.de> wrote: > Ok, > > cheers, > Martin > > > On Sat, 2009-07-18 at 21:45 -0500, Daniel Spiewak wrote: > > I like most of what you've changed. I'm going to reword some stuff, add > a > > couple things back in, but on the whole I think it's good. One thing I > > would suggest is that you rebase -i the documentation commits on top of > > trunk, rather than my master. Actually, I've already done it for you, > > though I edited things slightly during the merge, so it's not an exact > > rebase. Your commits are now incorporated into my quickstart branch: > > > > git://github.com/djspiewak/buildr.git / quickstart > > > > Once I make my changes, I'll push them up so that you can see. Once > we're > > happy with the results, I'll rebase down to three or so commits > (crediting > > you appropriately in the commit messages) and dcommit into the SVN. > > > > Daniel > > > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Martin Grotzke < > > martin.grot...@javakaffee.de> wrote: > > > > > hi, > > > > > > now I have shortened the quickstart a little bit. reading the whole doc > > > was fun btw! :) > > > > > > the buildr clone url is > > > http://github.com/magro/buildr/tree/master > > > > > > cheers, > > > martin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 13:55 -0500, Daniel Spiewak wrote: > > > > > that's a really good idea! And a great quick start! > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > I scanned through your quick start, read the first paragraphs and > then > > > > > began to scroll - it got a little bit too detailed at the end. E.g. > for > > > > > a quick start I'd just mention how dependencies/artifacts are > defined, > > > > > but I would not explain how buildr caches them. For such further > > > > > information the text could hyperlink to an appropriate section in > the > > > > > full documentation. I'd also ignore things like the artifacts task, > as > > > > > the "normal" build lifecycle does not include this task - at least > for > > > > > me. > > > > > > > > > > > > True, @artifacts@ can be omitted, especially since @build@ takes > care of > > > > that for you. As for the very last bits about Rake tasks, I really > think > > > > that should be left in some form. Maybe we could simplify things a > bit, > > > but > > > > custom tasks are such a fundamental part of Buildr, I don't think we > can > > > > just ignore them, even for a quick start. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd focus on keeping this quick start as short as possible and > leave > > > out > > > > > (link to) things that are not necessarily required to get the first > > > > > simple (multi module?) project going, so that new users don't get > the > > > > > impression that buildr is kind of complex or that one needs to read > a > > > > > lot to get the basic things done. > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. Short and sweet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Additionally one might create two intros "buildr for maven users" > and > > > > > "buildr for ant users": e.g. for ant users it's definitely > important > > > > > that they can reuse all their ant stuff without pain, and this > would > > > > > also include an example for an ant task/target. > > > > > > > > > > > > See my other email on this one. To summarize, I think the concepts > > > > presented in such tutorials would be so alike as to really merit > merging > > > > into one, as I have done. Maybe we could add a few p(tip) sections > about > > > > "such-in-such in Ant/Maven equals this-and-that in Buildr"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > So if I can help with anything please let me know :) > > > > > > > > > > > > Famous last words. :-) I hardly consider my text to be sacred, so > if > > > you > > > > feel like a section needs to be deleted, a paragraph needs to be > added, > > > or a > > > > sentence needs to be re-worded, please, feel free! I seem to recall > that > > > > you cloned the Git repo. Feel free to make changes and commit the > > > results. > > > > If you give me a public clone URL for your repo, I'll pull your > changes, > > > > review and push them up to the SVN. This is just documentation > stuff, so > > > I > > > > don't think that a separate ASF agreement is necessary. (is it?) > > > > > > > > Daniel > > > > -- > Martin Grotzke > http://www.javakaffee.de/blog/ >
