t: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:27:57 PM
Subject: RE: [nant-dev] MSBuild
Hi Eric.
> I don't see much use for NAnt except for legacy stuff.
For what it's worth, I see a place for both tools.
In a significant project I'm working on at the moment, we use MSBuild to
do the actua
AIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] MSBuild
To: "Eric Fetzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "NAnt Developers"
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
What about builds targeted towards multiple f
On 25/10/06, Bevan Arps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Eric.
>
> > I don't see much use for NAnt except for legacy stuff.
>
> For what it's worth, I see a place for both tools.
>
> In a significant project I'm working on at the moment, we use MSBuild to
> do the actual builds ... But we control
Hi Eric.
> I don't see much use for NAnt except for legacy stuff.
For what it's worth, I see a place for both tools.
In a significant project I'm working on at the moment, we use MSBuild to
do the actual builds ... But we control it by invoking it from within
NAnt.
Our NAnt scripts take care o
What about builds targeted towards multiple frameworks? I don't that
MSBuild (aka MS-NAnt in my office) handles that, nor was expected to for
some time.
Cort
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric
Fetzer
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:
>#1 difference - the source availability! :)
Very, very good point! :-)
<>
#1 difference - the source availability! :)
John Lam wrote:
I've spent a fair amount of time recently with MSBuild, and have the
following set of observations about its relationship to [N]Ant:
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net G
MSBuild is obviously a child of Embrace & Extend philosophy; being built-in
in the next version of the framework will do wonders in terms of promoting
the process of automated builds, which are critical to quality in our line
of work. That is a good thing. Nant is already doing it. And that is even
