+5 Let me make my vote stronger by saying that I agree that all configuration items involved in a software build should be placeable under version control. That should include the library configuration. In fact, this week we just re-arranged all of our libraries and I had to fix up all of the library definitions. Unfortunately, if I every checked out an older version of the software, my (fixed) project wouldn't match.
Christopher Cobb wrote: > +1 I like the JBuilder way, too :) > > Stefan Freyr Stefansson wrote: > > > Hello. > > > > Before I begin, I'd like to say kudos to the IDEA team for a (mostly) great > > product. > > > > I'm working for a rather large company that has a relatively large software > > department. > > > > Until now we've been using JBuilder as our primary software development tool > > and been pretty satisfied with it (except that it is way too expensive and > > we're not really using many of the features that actually make it so > > expensive such as EJB development). > > > > A few of us here have been evaluating IntelliJ IDEA and we are very pleased > > with it except for mainly one thing (I'll elaborate on that a little later). > > We started out evaluating v2.5 but soon switched to Ariadna, mostly because > > 2.5 used absolute paths for many things that made group development > > virtually impossible. We're running development machines on at least two > > platforms (windows and linux) and we desperately needed the projects to use > > relative paths for all definitions. > > > > After we switched to Ariadna, things have gone much better. However, I > > recently discovered a very serious bug that is giving us a hard time to make > > the transition from JBuilder to IDEA companywide. The thing is that all > > library definitions seem to be done on an "dev machine level". That is, if > > I create a library definition it seems to be stored in an XML document > > called "library.table.xml" that is located under the > > <IDEA_HOME>/config/options directory. This means that I can not have two > > versions of the project on my computer at the same time referencing > > different versions of this library. This poses a serious usability issue > > here for us where we are for example developing projects that have been > > branched in CVS in order to maintain a "stable" branch for a release > > version. The branched project does not use the same jar file version as the > > project on the MAIN branch and therefore we have a big problem. This method > > of storing library definitions doesn't really make much sense in this case. > > > > Now I know that you must hate hearing that JBuilder does something better > > than you but the fact is that in this case it does :o(. Overall, you guys > > have a much better product except for this single, yet serious flaw. I > > think that the way this is solved in JBuilder (being able to define a > > library definition on three levels: Dev machine level, Project level and > > User level) is a very good solution. Please tell me that this is on the > > agenda... hopefully for the 3.0 release? > > > > Kind regards, and just to prevent all misunderstanding... I'm not starting > > any flame war... I'm just expressing my concern because I would like nothing > > more than to drop JBuilder and pick up IDEA but the fact is that we can't > > possibly do that now because of this one thing :o( > > > > Stefan Freyr Stefansson > > Software Developer, deCODE Genetics. _______________________________________________ Eap-features mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.jetbrains.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-features
