We should remove build.properties from CVS. Then things will be consistent.
Separately we should resolve whether to add a default.properties file. Personally, I don't have a strong feeling about this. If forced to vote, I'd currently vote for leaving the defaults in build.xml, but I won't object if the majority wish to move default values to a default.properties file. Doug > -----Original Message----- > From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:01 AM > To: Lucene Developers List > Subject: Re: cvs commit: jakarta-lucene build.xml > > > That build.properties in CVS looking like it is always used (because > it's not called .sample or something such) looks like it would confuse > people ("I changed XYZ in build.properties, but it didn't take effect. > Why?"), that's what I was referring to when I said half-baked. > In any case, I'll wait to hear some more opinions. > > Otis > > --- Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Otis Gospodnetic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > I do think having defaults in build.xml and not > build.properties is > > > better than having defaults in build.properties and that using > > > build.properties for overriding defaults instead of changing > > build.xml > > > is better (simpler for people to do, less error prone, requires > > less > > > knowledge). > > > > I think there is some confusion. *Never* have Jon or I suggested > > anything > > about build.xml being edited. It should *never* be edited by an end > > user > > just simply wanting to build Lucene from source code. The > discussion > > is > > over best practices: whether properties should be in the > build.xml or > > default.properties. Neither of those should be edited by this > > end-user. > > For someone to build and change the destination of the > output, he/she > > would > > simply create a build.properties (in both Jon and I's > scheme) and set > > that > > one property. That is all. > > > > > It would be good if others could share their opinions and > votes, so > > > that I can move things out of the half-baked state on build in the > > CVS > > > repository. > > > > Whats half-baked about it? Properties are in build.xml now, right? > > Is > > there still a build.properties? That won't matter given that the > > properties > > are the same value and Ant has property immutability. But if > > build.properties is still there, I recommend just removing it or > > renaming > > it. And certainly Jon's scheme is fine if you choose do so - rename > > build.properties to default.properties, and remove the properties I > > added in > > build.xml. (keep in mind that I renamed a property or two so that > > the demo > > WAR and my docweb WAR had unique descriptive properties). > > > > Erik > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! > http://greetings.yahoo.com > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
