--- Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think we should have a build.properties.sample. If someone > wants to > change a property they shouldn't create a copy of all of the > properties, > they should create a file that defines the single property that they > wish to override.
I agree with all properties vs. a single property, as described in my last email. > If we wish to provide an example of how you override a property it > belongs in the documentation. > > So I'm +1 with removing build.properties and -1 on adding > build.properties.sample. Ok, -1, so I think only Jon's suggestion wasn't -1ed, so Jon, could you please finish this up? Thanks, Otis > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:56 AM > > To: Lucene Developers List > > Subject: Re: cvs commit: jakarta-lucene build.xml > > > > > > Ah, yes, build.properties is still being sucked in by build.xml. > > > > Ok, I'm moving build.properties to build.properties.sample, > commenting > > out everything it the latter (we can clean it up later), removing > > former from the CVS. > > > > This should clean things up. > > Anything else needs to be done? > > > > Otis > > > > > > --- Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, just to clarify.... if you change something in > > build.properties > > > it > > > *will* (by design) take effect! Thats what its all about! :) > > > > > > Erik > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Otis Gospodnetic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Lucene Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:00 PM > > > 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]> > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > 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]> > __________________________________________________ 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]>
