.ant.properties is (a) awkward to create in *some* windows platforms and (b)
awkward to see in all *nix platforms.
I think we want .ant.properties to be easy to create, and I think we want
.ant.properties.sample to be easy to see. So why would we use the name
.ant.properties? Because that's the way ant's build file is set up?
I think build.properties[.sample] (or even ant.properties[.sample], without
the leading dot) meets our needs and is easy (perhaps easiest) to
understand, so I'd rather see us stick with that, but I don't really care
all that much.
I guess that makes me -0 on the name ".ant.properties".
-----Original Message-----
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 11:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Finding "build.properties" Files
Vincent Massol wrote:
>
> If we count the votes :
> +1 craig
> +0 vincent
> -0 ignacio
> ? geir
>
> The first think we need to do is to amend our charter with the new voting
> rules. I seem to remember that there was a beginning of proposition from
> Rodney. Only Geir did answer. I just sent my answer. So first, let's
decide
> the voting rule and then it will be much easier to apply them for items
such
> as the one Craig is proposing.
>
> If need be I'll change my vote to +1 on the build.properties subject if it
> can make things go forward.
If this is about ".ant.properties" vs "build.properties", I really don't
care. +1 from me if it helps move this forward.
I think the that my argument is valid re an expressive name like
'build.properties' but I don't feel strongly.
I am sure your remarks on the Windows GUI problem are important to some.
However, I think it's important to not make this 'binding law' for the
components, but a strongly supported commons convention. If you want to
flout convention, flout....
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
