> > I like the nested command and it looks like it would be > easy to extend > > something like this into some sort of pluggable version > control task. > > Why do you want to do it? The last thing we need here is abstraction.
I would like to do this because it provides a framework to add more version control systems. A framework will make it easier to add and use different version control systems. This is not to make it easy to switch your project from <cvs/> to <vss/> (although I believe this switch will be possible from cvs to subversion, as this is one of subversion's design goals: http://subversion.tigris.org/project_faq.html#why). This is to make it easy to understand one syntax in NAnt and apply it to the different version control systems that you might use in your career. I think design at this point is a lot better than making breaking changes at a later point in time, don't you? > CVS is simple. Ultra simple. Dude, I disagree: http://www.loria.fr/~molli/cvs/doc/cvs_5.html :-). Well documented, yes. Simple no. > Each task should be easy to use, instead of being general and > pluggable. If you want code reuse, you can create a parent > class which is not a task and inherit actual tasks from it > (cvs-update, cvs-checkout, cvs-tag, ...). This is similar to > what all .NET compilers do. The cvs task already has this. It also reuses code to implement the <svn/> task in NAntContrib. > I just want a simple syntax Good, at least we have similar goals. I think our issue is that we have a different opinion on what "simple" is. I think if you could explain what makes your way more simple than the other examples that would really help. > "modulo attribute names" means I haven't taken time to check > the docs for the exact attribute names. That's all. I see, thanks. > > Finally this accomplishes another thing, which is > > keeping the interface/ task tags that are needed to a minimum which. > > Why do you want this? Again so it is easier to use with different systems, when a different version control is mandated, when you decide to upgrade to svn the syntax is the same, when you change projects, the command is similar and it is an eas(ier) transition. When someone decides that version control system X is better than version control Y and wants to add this to NAnt you can extend the current framework and keep some consistency for the end user. > > Switching to something like <vcs type="cvs" /> might be even > > better...but maybe I am getting ahead of myself. > > -1 to this idea. Noted. Cheers, Clayton ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id70&alloc_id638&op=click _______________________________________________ Nant-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-users
