On 08.06.2004 08:38, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Read my answer to Antonio: having separate files gives no guarantee that the sources you have in the source archive are the one that were actually used for the build. And when releasing projects, it is IMO safer to ship them with the sources if a non-release version is used.
Not really convinced, but I can live with it. And now that you are the PMC chair ... :-P
This feature is enabled using the "build.archive-sources" property, e.g. "build -Dbuild.archive-sources=true webapp".
We should add it to build.properties (no preference on enabled or disabled ATM). I had a look to what category it fits at best. The "build" category is just about directories, the "Build Exclusions" category would probably the best, but there the properties are named in another style, "exclude.deprecated" for example.
Add it to that latter category and rename the property to e.g. "exclude.archive-sources"?
"exclude.archive-sources" is fine if you think it better fits the build property naming scheme. Or better "exclude.source-in-jars" which is a noun instead of a verb?
Used include.sources-in-jars. I don't like the exclude syntax so much and there are already other include.* properties (see below that added one). Sometimes I will change all excludes in includes as it was already done for the blocks.
Joerg
