Re: IDE-specific files in svn
ant elder wrote: On 6/14/07, Frank Budinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, I remember about a year ago discussing whether or not it is acceptable/appropriate to check-in IDE specific files (e.g., Eclipse .project files) into svn, and we decided to not do it. Does anyone remember if this was really an Apache policy, or just a decision we made for Tuscany? If the latter, I wonder if we should reconsider. Personally, I think it would be very convenient if we had the Eclipse .project and .classfile in the projects, so that people could just check out Tuscany projects directly into Eclipse. For people not using Eclipse, having these superfluous files around really doesn't seem like a big deal. I also wouldn't mind if someone wants to check-in other IDE (e.g. IDEA) files that Eclipse users (like me) would just ignore. What do others think about this? AFAIK there's no 'rule' that says this must not be done. However no other Apache (or non-Apache) project that i can think of does this so it would be unusual and that makes me wonder why. Is it just the extra "mvn -Pelcipse eclipse:eclipse" thats the problem or is there something else about it thats a pain? (Also we may be able to get rid of the '-Peclipse' bit now if that would make it easier to bare? ...ant One comment and two questions: - Some Apache C projects (e.g. Axis2/C) already have IDE (Visual Studio) files in SVN. I am not sure about any Java projects. - To help understand how useful it is to have these files, could you please post them and provide a short description of what I'll need to do to load my Eclipse workspace from scratch, including how you download dependencies and how you set up any classpath variables or user libraries other than M2_REPO? - Are you thinking about providing these IDE files for committers (who already have Maven and do Maven builds before committing)? or other contributors and users? If this is mostly for contributors and users, how about generating these IDE files in our nightly builds? If they are not generated then are you going to make sure that they are always in sync with the build? Thanks -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IDE-specific files in svn
I was assuming we would check in one "default" configuration. There's nothing preventing people from running maven eclipse:eclipse or manually changing them in their own environments. We wouldn't want people to accidentally check their changes back in so we'd probably want them on the svn:ignore list. I wasn't really implying that we need to have a policy that every Tuscany project include IDE files. I was really just wondering if it would be acceptable to allow such files to be checked in to any of the projects. For SDO, for example, the two projects that I know are currently being reused by other projects (in isolation) are sdo-api and sdo-lib. Having Eclipse files for just those two would be helpful. Frank. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 06/14/2007 05:14:44 AM: > Right thats the problem isn't it. If we check in the IDE files in we're > assuming one particular way of using the code. For the SCA project which is > quite big i've several different workspaces - one with every thing including > modules, samples and itest, another workspace just with modules, and another > just with samples etc. That wouldn't work with the IDE files checked in as > I'd have to change them for the the different workspaces and then when doing > checkin's try real hard to not accidentally commit my local changes to the > IDE files which would be a real pain and almost certainly quite often happen > by accident. > >...ant > > On 6/14/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > There's pain in the process, not huge, but irritating > > > > first off there's the definition of the M2_REPO variable, not a huge > > problem, especially if you stick to just one workspace. I tend to create > > workspaces as and when I need them, and I can't see how to make my variable > > definition cross multiple workspaces. > > > > Next, and probably more significant is removing the binary dependencies > > and setting up inter project dependencies. After the maven eclipse:eclipse > > command for example, the tools project depends on the binary artifacts > > generated from the maven build of the impl, lib and api projects . What > > most developers are going to want is inter project dependencies. So there's > > quite a bit of manual deletion of jars from the class path entries, then, > > you might want for example the lib project to expose the api projects > > interface, etc. etc. > > > > I'm quite well practised at setting this up, but its still a 5 minute > > job. > > > > Regards, Kelvin. > > > > On 14/06/07, ant elder < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 6/14/07, Frank Budinsky < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I remember about a year ago discussing whether or not it is > > > > acceptable/appropriate to check-in IDE specific files (e.g., Eclipse > > > > .project files) into svn, and we decided to not do it. Does anyone > > > > remember if this was really an Apache policy, or just a decision we > > > made > > > > for Tuscany? If the latter, I wonder if we should reconsider. > > > Personally, > > > > I think it would be very convenient if we had the Eclipse .project and > > > > > > > .classfile in the projects, so that people could just check out > > > Tuscany > > > > projects directly into Eclipse. For people not using Eclipse, having > > > these > > > > superfluous files around really doesn't seem like a big deal. I also > > > > wouldn't mind if someone wants to check-in other IDE (e.g. IDEA) files > > > > that Eclipse users (like me) would just ignore. > > > > > > > > What do others think about this? > > > > > > > > > AFAIK there's no 'rule' that says this must not be done. However no > > > other > > > Apache (or non-Apache) project that i can think of does this so it would > > > be > > > unusual and that makes me wonder why. > > > > > > Is it just the extra "mvn -Pelcipse eclipse:eclipse" thats the problem > > > or is > > > there something else about it thats a pain? (Also we may be able to get > > > rid > > > of the '-Peclipse' bit now if that would make it easier to bare? > > > > > >...ant > > > > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IDE-specific files in svn
Where are you running the mvn eclipse command from? When I do it from the top-level SDO folder all the projects get setup using inter project dependencies (with the exception of sdo-api as thats outside in spec/sdo-api right now but that will be fixed when its moved into the sdo folder)? ...ant On 6/14/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There's pain in the process, not huge, but irritating first off there's the definition of the M2_REPO variable, not a huge problem, especially if you stick to just one workspace. I tend to create workspaces as and when I need them, and I can't see how to make my variable definition cross multiple workspaces. Next, and probably more significant is removing the binary dependencies and setting up inter project dependencies. After the maven eclipse:eclipse command for example, the tools project depends on the binary artifacts generated from the maven build of the impl, lib and api projects . What most developers are going to want is inter project dependencies. So there's quite a bit of manual deletion of jars from the class path entries, then, you might want for example the lib project to expose the api projects interface, etc. etc. I'm quite well practised at setting this up, but its still a 5 minute job. Regards, Kelvin. On 14/06/07, ant elder < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 6/14/07, Frank Budinsky < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I remember about a year ago discussing whether or not it is > > acceptable/appropriate to check-in IDE specific files (e.g., Eclipse > > .project files) into svn, and we decided to not do it. Does anyone > > remember if this was really an Apache policy, or just a decision we > made > > for Tuscany? If the latter, I wonder if we should reconsider. > Personally, > > I think it would be very convenient if we had the Eclipse .project and > > > .classfile in the projects, so that people could just check out > Tuscany > > projects directly into Eclipse. For people not using Eclipse, having > these > > superfluous files around really doesn't seem like a big deal. I also > > wouldn't mind if someone wants to check-in other IDE (e.g. IDEA) files > > that Eclipse users (like me) would just ignore. > > > > What do others think about this? > > > AFAIK there's no 'rule' that says this must not be done. However no > other > Apache (or non-Apache) project that i can think of does this so it would > be > unusual and that makes me wonder why. > > Is it just the extra "mvn -Pelcipse eclipse:eclipse" thats the problem > or is > there something else about it thats a pain? (Also we may be able to get > rid > of the '-Peclipse' bit now if that would make it easier to bare? > >...ant >
Re: IDE-specific files in svn
Agree with all that, plus the fact that you need to install maven and check-out using the command line. If we had .project files, people could check-out the projects they want "directly into Eclipse" and work with them without ever needing mvn. Frank. "kelvin goodson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/14/2007 04:56:40 AM: > There's pain in the process, not huge, but irritating > > first off there's the definition of the M2_REPO variable, not a huge > problem, especially if you stick to just one workspace. I tend to create > workspaces as and when I need them, and I can't see how to make my variable > definition cross multiple workspaces. > > Next, and probably more significant is removing the binary dependencies and > setting up inter project dependencies. After the maven eclipse:eclipse > command for example, the tools project depends on the binary artifacts > generated from the maven build of the impl, lib and api projects . What > most developers are going to want is inter project dependencies. So there's > quite a bit of manual deletion of jars from the class path entries, then, > you might want for example the lib project to expose the api projects > interface, etc. etc. > > I'm quite well practised at setting this up, but its still a 5 minute job. > > Regards, Kelvin. > > On 14/06/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 6/14/07, Frank Budinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I remember about a year ago discussing whether or not it is > > > acceptable/appropriate to check-in IDE specific files (e.g., Eclipse > > > .project files) into svn, and we decided to not do it. Does anyone > > > remember if this was really an Apache policy, or just a decision we made > > > for Tuscany? If the latter, I wonder if we should reconsider. > > Personally, > > > I think it would be very convenient if we had the Eclipse .project and > > > .classfile in the projects, so that people could just check out Tuscany > > > projects directly into Eclipse. For people not using Eclipse, having > > these > > > superfluous files around really doesn't seem like a big deal. I also > > > wouldn't mind if someone wants to check-in other IDE (e.g. IDEA) files > > > that Eclipse users (like me) would just ignore. > > > > > > What do others think about this? > > > > > > AFAIK there's no 'rule' that says this must not be done. However no other > > Apache (or non-Apache) project that i can think of does this so it would > > be > > unusual and that makes me wonder why. > > > > Is it just the extra "mvn -Pelcipse eclipse:eclipse" thats the problem or > > is > > there something else about it thats a pain? (Also we may be able to get > > rid > > of the '-Peclipse' bit now if that would make it easier to bare? > > > >...ant > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IDE-specific files in svn
Can we do anything with svn:externals properties or overlays to help with this. Or maybe we could check in a standard set of patches that represent adding eclipse stuff to projects? Users could then do an extract in one of a set of standard patterns, and then apply a patch to put the IDE files in place. Kelvin. On 14/06/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Right thats the problem isn't it. If we check in the IDE files in we're assuming one particular way of using the code. For the SCA project which is quite big i've several different workspaces - one with every thing including modules, samples and itest, another workspace just with modules, and another just with samples etc. That wouldn't work with the IDE files checked in as I'd have to change them for the the different workspaces and then when doing checkin's try real hard to not accidentally commit my local changes to the IDE files which would be a real pain and almost certainly quite often happen by accident. ...ant On 6/14/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's pain in the process, not huge, but irritating > > first off there's the definition of the M2_REPO variable, not a huge > problem, especially if you stick to just one workspace. I tend to create > workspaces as and when I need them, and I can't see how to make my variable > definition cross multiple workspaces. > > Next, and probably more significant is removing the binary dependencies > and setting up inter project dependencies. After the maven eclipse:eclipse > command for example, the tools project depends on the binary artifacts > generated from the maven build of the impl, lib and api projects . What > most developers are going to want is inter project dependencies. So there's > quite a bit of manual deletion of jars from the class path entries, then, > you might want for example the lib project to expose the api projects > interface, etc. etc. > > I'm quite well practised at setting this up, but its still a 5 minute > job. > > Regards, Kelvin. > > On 14/06/07, ant elder < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 6/14/07, Frank Budinsky < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I remember about a year ago discussing whether or not it is > > > acceptable/appropriate to check-in IDE specific files (e.g., Eclipse > > > .project files) into svn, and we decided to not do it. Does anyone > > > remember if this was really an Apache policy, or just a decision we > > made > > > for Tuscany? If the latter, I wonder if we should reconsider. > > Personally, > > > I think it would be very convenient if we had the Eclipse .project and > > > > > .classfile in the projects, so that people could just check out > > Tuscany > > > projects directly into Eclipse. For people not using Eclipse, having > > these > > > superfluous files around really doesn't seem like a big deal. I also > > > wouldn't mind if someone wants to check-in other IDE (e.g. IDEA) files > > > that Eclipse users (like me) would just ignore. > > > > > > What do others think about this? > > > > > > AFAIK there's no 'rule' that says this must not be done. However no > > other > > Apache (or non-Apache) project that i can think of does this so it would > > be > > unusual and that makes me wonder why. > > > > Is it just the extra "mvn -Pelcipse eclipse:eclipse" thats the problem > > or is > > there something else about it thats a pain? (Also we may be able to get > > rid > > of the '-Peclipse' bit now if that would make it easier to bare? > > > >...ant > > > >
Re: IDE-specific files in svn
Right thats the problem isn't it. If we check in the IDE files in we're assuming one particular way of using the code. For the SCA project which is quite big i've several different workspaces - one with every thing including modules, samples and itest, another workspace just with modules, and another just with samples etc. That wouldn't work with the IDE files checked in as I'd have to change them for the the different workspaces and then when doing checkin's try real hard to not accidentally commit my local changes to the IDE files which would be a real pain and almost certainly quite often happen by accident. ...ant On 6/14/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There's pain in the process, not huge, but irritating first off there's the definition of the M2_REPO variable, not a huge problem, especially if you stick to just one workspace. I tend to create workspaces as and when I need them, and I can't see how to make my variable definition cross multiple workspaces. Next, and probably more significant is removing the binary dependencies and setting up inter project dependencies. After the maven eclipse:eclipse command for example, the tools project depends on the binary artifacts generated from the maven build of the impl, lib and api projects . What most developers are going to want is inter project dependencies. So there's quite a bit of manual deletion of jars from the class path entries, then, you might want for example the lib project to expose the api projects interface, etc. etc. I'm quite well practised at setting this up, but its still a 5 minute job. Regards, Kelvin. On 14/06/07, ant elder < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 6/14/07, Frank Budinsky < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I remember about a year ago discussing whether or not it is > > acceptable/appropriate to check-in IDE specific files (e.g., Eclipse > > .project files) into svn, and we decided to not do it. Does anyone > > remember if this was really an Apache policy, or just a decision we > made > > for Tuscany? If the latter, I wonder if we should reconsider. > Personally, > > I think it would be very convenient if we had the Eclipse .project and > > > .classfile in the projects, so that people could just check out > Tuscany > > projects directly into Eclipse. For people not using Eclipse, having > these > > superfluous files around really doesn't seem like a big deal. I also > > wouldn't mind if someone wants to check-in other IDE (e.g. IDEA) files > > that Eclipse users (like me) would just ignore. > > > > What do others think about this? > > > AFAIK there's no 'rule' that says this must not be done. However no > other > Apache (or non-Apache) project that i can think of does this so it would > be > unusual and that makes me wonder why. > > Is it just the extra "mvn -Pelcipse eclipse:eclipse" thats the problem > or is > there something else about it thats a pain? (Also we may be able to get > rid > of the '-Peclipse' bit now if that would make it easier to bare? > >...ant >
Re: IDE-specific files in svn
There's pain in the process, not huge, but irritating first off there's the definition of the M2_REPO variable, not a huge problem, especially if you stick to just one workspace. I tend to create workspaces as and when I need them, and I can't see how to make my variable definition cross multiple workspaces. Next, and probably more significant is removing the binary dependencies and setting up inter project dependencies. After the maven eclipse:eclipse command for example, the tools project depends on the binary artifacts generated from the maven build of the impl, lib and api projects . What most developers are going to want is inter project dependencies. So there's quite a bit of manual deletion of jars from the class path entries, then, you might want for example the lib project to expose the api projects interface, etc. etc. I'm quite well practised at setting this up, but its still a 5 minute job. Regards, Kelvin. On 14/06/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/14/07, Frank Budinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I remember about a year ago discussing whether or not it is > acceptable/appropriate to check-in IDE specific files (e.g., Eclipse > .project files) into svn, and we decided to not do it. Does anyone > remember if this was really an Apache policy, or just a decision we made > for Tuscany? If the latter, I wonder if we should reconsider. Personally, > I think it would be very convenient if we had the Eclipse .project and > .classfile in the projects, so that people could just check out Tuscany > projects directly into Eclipse. For people not using Eclipse, having these > superfluous files around really doesn't seem like a big deal. I also > wouldn't mind if someone wants to check-in other IDE (e.g. IDEA) files > that Eclipse users (like me) would just ignore. > > What do others think about this? AFAIK there's no 'rule' that says this must not be done. However no other Apache (or non-Apache) project that i can think of does this so it would be unusual and that makes me wonder why. Is it just the extra "mvn -Pelcipse eclipse:eclipse" thats the problem or is there something else about it thats a pain? (Also we may be able to get rid of the '-Peclipse' bit now if that would make it easier to bare? ...ant
Re: IDE-specific files in svn
Sounds good to me, we'd just have to make some decisions about the nature of the classpath entries. I would assume that for the api, lib, impl, tools and plugins projects we would set up inter-project dependencies, but what would we do about classpath entries for binary artifacts such as EMF? The current way we describe relies on a local maven repository, but it would be nice not to have to assume that the user has maven. It would also be nice not to have lots of red error markers over the eclipse workspace indicating that the 3rd party dependencies need resolving. Are we allowed to put binary 3rd party dependencies into svn? Kelvin. On 14/06/07, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Frank, I'm of the opinion that anything that makes it easier for developers to get to grips with our stuff, the better. Personally, having to to create all the Eclipse stuff has been a pain, so doing this would save me time and effort. I agree with your sentiment that if others want to add features for other IDE's then that should be OK too. Yours, Mike. Frank Budinsky wrote: > Hi, > > I remember about a year ago discussing whether or not it is > acceptable/appropriate to check-in IDE specific files (e.g., Eclipse > .project files) into svn, and we decided to not do it. Does anyone > remember if this was really an Apache policy, or just a decision we made > for Tuscany? If the latter, I wonder if we should reconsider. Personally, > I think it would be very convenient if we had the Eclipse .project and > .classfile in the projects, so that people could just check out Tuscany > projects directly into Eclipse. For people not using Eclipse, having these > superfluous files around really doesn't seem like a big deal. I also > wouldn't mind if someone wants to check-in other IDE (e.g. IDEA) files > that Eclipse users (like me) would just ignore. > > What do others think about this? > > Thanks, > Frank. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IDE-specific files in svn
On 6/14/07, Frank Budinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, I remember about a year ago discussing whether or not it is acceptable/appropriate to check-in IDE specific files (e.g., Eclipse .project files) into svn, and we decided to not do it. Does anyone remember if this was really an Apache policy, or just a decision we made for Tuscany? If the latter, I wonder if we should reconsider. Personally, I think it would be very convenient if we had the Eclipse .project and .classfile in the projects, so that people could just check out Tuscany projects directly into Eclipse. For people not using Eclipse, having these superfluous files around really doesn't seem like a big deal. I also wouldn't mind if someone wants to check-in other IDE (e.g. IDEA) files that Eclipse users (like me) would just ignore. What do others think about this? AFAIK there's no 'rule' that says this must not be done. However no other Apache (or non-Apache) project that i can think of does this so it would be unusual and that makes me wonder why. Is it just the extra "mvn -Pelcipse eclipse:eclipse" thats the problem or is there something else about it thats a pain? (Also we may be able to get rid of the '-Peclipse' bit now if that would make it easier to bare? ...ant
Re: IDE-specific files in svn
Frank, I'm of the opinion that anything that makes it easier for developers to get to grips with our stuff, the better. Personally, having to to create all the Eclipse stuff has been a pain, so doing this would save me time and effort. I agree with your sentiment that if others want to add features for other IDE's then that should be OK too. Yours, Mike. Frank Budinsky wrote: Hi, I remember about a year ago discussing whether or not it is acceptable/appropriate to check-in IDE specific files (e.g., Eclipse .project files) into svn, and we decided to not do it. Does anyone remember if this was really an Apache policy, or just a decision we made for Tuscany? If the latter, I wonder if we should reconsider. Personally, I think it would be very convenient if we had the Eclipse .project and .classfile in the projects, so that people could just check out Tuscany projects directly into Eclipse. For people not using Eclipse, having these superfluous files around really doesn't seem like a big deal. I also wouldn't mind if someone wants to check-in other IDE (e.g. IDEA) files that Eclipse users (like me) would just ignore. What do others think about this? Thanks, Frank. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IDE-specific files in svn
Hi, I remember about a year ago discussing whether or not it is acceptable/appropriate to check-in IDE specific files (e.g., Eclipse .project files) into svn, and we decided to not do it. Does anyone remember if this was really an Apache policy, or just a decision we made for Tuscany? If the latter, I wonder if we should reconsider. Personally, I think it would be very convenient if we had the Eclipse .project and .classfile in the projects, so that people could just check out Tuscany projects directly into Eclipse. For people not using Eclipse, having these superfluous files around really doesn't seem like a big deal. I also wouldn't mind if someone wants to check-in other IDE (e.g. IDEA) files that Eclipse users (like me) would just ignore. What do others think about this? Thanks, Frank. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
