On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Adam Murdoch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 10/12/09 4:06 AM, Philip Crotwell wrote: > >> It is probably too late in the game for these types of questions, but >> here goes anyway. :) >> >> Gradle is working out really well for me, but I have one small gripe. >> I use bash autocomplete a lot. I also do a lot of "cd build" or "vi >> build.gradle" or "vi buildSrc/xyz". The gripe is that all of these >> start with "build" and so the autocompletion beeps for each of them. I >> presume the build and build.gradle names are to be similar to ant, >> maven uses pom.xml and target. I am not sure I have any better >> suggestions for them, maybe "build" could be "gradleOut" or >> "output.gradle" ? To be really old school and borrow from make, >> "build.gradle" could be "gradlefile". :) >> > It was called gradlefile in the very old days (before 0.2). Here is the thread were we decided to rename things: http://markmail.org/thread/7i3db3twrd7cy56d One argument against gradlefile was that it has no extensions and that particuarly under windows it is harder to associate applications with it. > >> >> > > I really don't like the fact that every build file is called > 'build.gradle', for the same reason. Along similar lines, it makes it > difficult to find a build file in the IDE, because they all have the same > name. > There are already a couple of builds that change the name of the subprojects build.gradle files in the settings.gradle (e.g. the Gradle build). What is inconvenient now is that partial builds are more awkward to trigger from the command line (you need to use the -b option). > > The name of the build file is also a valuable source of configuration > information that we're not making use of. > > We talked a while ago about letting you call your build script whatever you > like. The gradle command would simply look for any file that ends with > .gradle, rather than a file called build.gradle. We would also use the name > of the build file as the (default) name for the project, rather than using > the name of the directory containing the build script. I was planning on > looking at this for the Gradle 0.10 release. See: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GRADLE-348 > > > I assume that buildSrc is treated differently than src because it is >> more like a subproject than a regular source directory, but I wonder >> if buildSrc could be renamed to src/build? That would have the >> advantage of keeping all source files in one directory. >> >> > > I think this is a better place for it. I did think about that option. The reason why I preferred buildSrc was to distinguish it from the input src that will be part of the build artifacts. But I don't feel strong about this. - Hans > > > I know all these are configurable, but I really think there is great >> advantage to sticking to the convention for these types of things. >> Probably bash could be configured to know the difference as well, >> haven't had time to try that. >> >> As I said, it is probably too late >> > > I don't think it's too late. We want to get this stuff right for Gradle > 1.0, so now is the time to change it if it needs changing. I think in both > cases we can introduce these changes in a controlled way, where we keep and > deprecate the old behaviour, and remove it a few releases later. > > > -- > Adam Murdoch > Gradle Developer > http://www.gradle.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > >
