Okay, I'll put it in the Extras directory once I get it cleaned up.
(That is, once I figure out cvs from my Windows box). Should be a day
or two.
The fact that it uses a regular expression is what seems to be causing
the consternation. If I or someone ever gets around to adding the
"static" pro
Smith, Eric V. wrote:
> It's beginning to sound like my VersionTask isn't what people are after
It's what I want, and planned on writing. :)
Brad
--
Read my web log at http://www.quality.nu/dotnetguy/
___
Nant-developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECT
How is that different from just having .cs file (say,
AssemblyVersion.cs) that only contains the version attribute? It's one
file instead of your two.
It's beginning to sound like my VersionTask isn't what people are after,
so I'll just keep it to myself and not put it in the Nant source.
Thanks
> Can I ask one thing? Why bother modifying
> AssemblyInfo.cs anyway? What I'd do is just
> nuke that file from my builds. Instead, just
> have some other file (say, a .txt) containing
> the latest build number used, then, from the
> buildfile, generate a .cs with just the version
> attribute
Eric,
> Jeff Richter in "Applied Microsoft .Net Framework Programming" argues
> against using the asterisk. I'm not sure I buy his argument, but I
> respect his opinion. In addition, I like having a deterministic nightly
> build number, or more often if I build releases multiple times per day.
I thought the existing nant documentation was lacking, and also wanted to
increase my xsl-fu. Hence, I'm converting the existing documentation to XML
and using XSL to get html files. as you can see, I don't use MS' msxsl
command-line util; I use one that's available from
http://www.fh-frankfurt.de
http://www.codeproject.com/csharp/runtime_eval.asp
this guy seems to have some code that will compile arbitrary strings at runtime.
Andy Smith
Chief Code Monkey
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 2:55 PM
To:
> He suggested loading the file in with the
> CodeDom
Easier said than done. If you look at the CodeDomProvider abstract class, you'll
notice a CreateParser method. For all the CodeDom providers that MS ships, they all
return NULL.
Of course, I'm crossing my fingers that Andy knows a better
Page 61, inside the box.
> -Original Message-
> From: Andy Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 4:56 PM
> To: Smith, Eric V.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [nant-dev] Version task
>
>
> I have that book, but don't remember reading that.
> can you give me a
I have that book, but don't remember reading that.
can you give me a page reference?
Andy Smith
Chief Code Monkey
-Original Message-
From: Smith, Eric V. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 2:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [nant-dev] Version ta
Jeff Richter in "Applied Microsoft .Net Framework Programming" argues
against using the asterisk. I'm not sure I buy his argument, but I
respect his opinion. In addition, I like having a deterministic nightly
build number, or more often if I build releases multiple times per day.
Accordingly, I
I don't understand why you need to write out the version number again...
the whole asterix thing in the version number is designed to auto-increment the
version.
does this behavior only exist in c#???
Andy Smith
Chief Code Monkey
-Original Message-
From: Smith, Eric V. [m
You could make the filename configurable and use AssemblyInfo.cs as the
default value.
Bernard
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:02 PM
Subject: RE: [nant-dev] Version task
>
> Yes but remember that AssemblyInfo.cs is
Andy Smith had an interesting comment in a private email. He suggested
loading the file in with the CodeDom and then retrieving the assembly
level attribute, and then generalizing this to reading any assembly
attribute. I think this is a great idea, but now that I've thought
about it I'm not sur
Yes but remember that AssemblyInfo.cs is not required meaning I could put
the assemblyinformation in helloworld.cs and it will compile just fine. I
guess this is the tradeoff between ease of use and assumptions.
Rob
Yeah, I think making the filename required is good. Or require a
language attribute (it could be an enum). Then you could set the default
filename based on that. Either way, it seems like one of them needs to
be required.
You could do something like:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL
It currently only works on AssemblyInfo.cs (or whatever file name you
specify). I'll work on the vb.net and jscript.net versions, that's a
good idea. I'll just base it off of the file extension. Should I make
the filename mandatory? It currently defaults to AssemblyInfo.cs. I
sort of like mak
The version task sounds like something that should be included in the
core set of tasks. It also sounds like a good replacement for the
current script.
Does it work on the AssemblyInfo.cs file, if so, does it work for vb.net
and jscript.net also?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTE
Robert,
This is something you couldn't have known. It was not discussed on this
list.
regards,
Bernard
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 4:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] Build Error - Doc
>>I down
>>I downloaded the daily build and executed "bin\nant doc" and this failed.
>>I'm using VS.NET Enterprise Architect Edition
>>I don't know what other information would be usefull
>>
>Robert this is a known issue. What you can do is delete or move
>collectiongen.dll from the bin directory and then
20 matches
Mail list logo
