:-).
Okay, that is 4 for option 2 then...and 1 for option 3 :-). So just to
summarize I will:
1) remove the global and command option sets
2) add common attributes to the specific task targets
3) add an extraoptions attribute and move commonly used options
from here as needed (when the option is identified as important enough
to move)
Cheers,
Clayton
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicklas Norling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: March 17, 2004 6:45 AM
> To: Clayton Harbour; Ian MacLean; Jaroslaw Kowalski
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Nant-users] CVS update
>
>
> I vote for the most simple form. Number 2 seems like it for
> me. But I want the "normal" parameters to be turned on by
> default. But my vote may not count, as I have not yet done my
> homework :) /Nicke
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Clayton Harbour [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: den 17 mars 2004 15:34
> > To: Ian MacLean; Jaroslaw Kowalski
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [Nant-users] CVS update
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Honestly I wouldn't really see a problem with using the same
> > syntax for the <csc/> task and that is one of the reasons
> > this thread started :-).
> >
> >
> > In any case that makes 2 for option 2 and if I stop sitting
> > on the fence, 2 for option 3. We need a tie breaker.
> >
> >
> > Clayton
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ian MacLean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: March 17, 2004 1:45 AM
> > > To: Jaroslaw Kowalski
> > > Cc: Clayton Harbour; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: [Nant-users] CVS update
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd have to say 2 also. Forcing users to use the nested
> > > <globaloptions> and <commandoptions> for even the
> simplest actions
> > > seems way too verbose. Imagine if you had to do
> > > <csc>
> > > <commandoptions>
> > > <option name="foo" value="true"/>
> > > <option name="bar" value="true"/>
> > > </commandoptions>
> > >
> > > to compile using csc ?
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> > >
> > > Jaroslaw Kowalski wrote:
> > >
> > > >My vote is 2 (but make sure that "extraoptions" is needed in <5%
> > > >cases).
> > > >
> > > >Jarek
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Clayton Harbour" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: "Jaroslaw Kowalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Kevin Dickover"
> > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Gert Driesen"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Scott
> > > >Hernandez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ian MacLean"
> > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 3:55 AM
> > > >Subject: RE: [Nant-users] CVS update
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >>-1000 for the framework idea :-). Okay I am going to try
> > to put my
> > > >>bruised ego aside and pull something constructive from this :-).
> > > >>
> > > >>Framework aside for now the issue is: what syntax do you prefer:
> > > >>
> > > >>1) option collections (current):
> > > >><cvs-update globaloptions="-nt"
> > > >>commandoptions="-r VERSION_FOO" ...... >
> > > >><globaloptions>
> > > >><option name="readonly" value="true"/>
> > > >></globaloptions>
> > > >><commandoptions>
> > > >><option name="pergeempty"
> > > >>value="false"/>
> > > >><option name="newdirs" value="false"/>
> > > >></commandoptions>
> > > >><fileset>
> > > >><includes name="**/*.cs"/>
> > > >></fileset>
> > > >></cvs-update>
> > > >>
> > > >>2) attributes:
> > > >><cvs-update purgeempty="true"
> > > >>newdirs="false"
> > > >>overwritelocal="true"
> > > >>extraoptions="-D ...">
> > > >><fileset>
> > > >><includes name="**/*.cs"/>
> > > >></fileset>
> > > >></cvs-update>
> > > >>
> > > >>3) nested commands with attributes:
> > > >><cvs cvsroot="{$CVSROOT}" rootprefix="{$CVSROOTPREFIX}"
> > > >>readonly="true"> <update pruneEmpty="true"
> buildDirectories="true"
> > > >>recursive="true"> <fileset>
> > > >><includes name="**/*.cs"/>
> > > >></fileset>
> > > >></update>
> > > >></cvs>
> > > >>
> > > >>4) I don't care, just quit spamming my mailbox and tell
> > me when you
> > > >>are done.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>My vote is either for 1 or 3. Please let me know what your
> > > preference
> > > >>is, if you have one.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>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_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >Nant-users mailing list
> > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-users
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ian MacLean, Developer,
> > > ActiveState, a division of Sophos
> > > http://www.ActiveState.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > 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/n> ant-users
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------
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
