Eric Fetzer wrote:
The big benefit to the project references is that you
can step into the code. Log4net, we definitely
wouldn't want to do that with, but it can be helpful
for these in house projects...
You can step into the project even without project references - if the
debug symbols file
OTECTED]
14/09/2006 16:06
To
Bill Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
'Nant Users'
cc
Subject
Re: [NAnt-users] Shared Components
I think that would be REALLY tough to maintain here.
In one of our apps, we have around 30 projects with
many dependancies interwoven throughout
I think that would be REALLY tough to maintain here.
In one of our apps, we have around 30 projects with
many dependancies interwoven throughout. The easiest
thing for me, I think, is to use the solution task
like this:
That way,
> Rod
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Bob
> Archer
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:29 AM
> To: Eric Fetzer; Nant Users
> Subject: Re: [NAnt-users] Shared Components
>
> Do you have a link t
personally
> never found that necessary.
>
> Remember, if it were easy, everyone would be doing
> it.
>
> Bob
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Fetzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 2:12 PM
> To: Bob Archer; Nant Us
Eric,
It depends how you compile your apps. The way I have done this (and I'm not
saying it's the best!) is I use the / tasks rather than the
task, and every project has its own .build file to build it. I
then have a controlling script and a properties file, and the properties
file contains a b
idea!
Rod
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob
Archer
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:29 AM
To: Eric Fetzer; Nant Users
Subject: Re: [NAnt-users] Shared Components
Do you have a link to that article?
He is absolutely right. Whe
riginal Message-
From: Eric Fetzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 2:12 PM
To: Bob Archer; Nant Users
Subject: RE: [NAnt-users] Shared Components
Actually, John Mischel at Microsoft put out an article
entitled "Project Structure Best Practices" where he
ssage-
> From: Eric Fetzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:43 PM
> To: Bob Archer; Nant Users
> Subject: RE: [NAnt-users] Shared Components
>
> Thanks for your reply Bob and Rod!
>
> We've got a new twist that developed in a
roject and circumstances.
BOb
-Original Message-
From: Eric Fetzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:43 PM
To: Bob Archer; Nant Users
Subject: RE: [NAnt-users] Shared Components
Thanks for your reply Bob and Rod!
We've got a new twist that developed in a meeti
: Bob Archer; Nant Users
Subject: Re: [NAnt-users] Shared Components
Thanks for your reply Bob and Rod!
We've got a new twist that developed in a meeting this morning. We're
moving over to project references only. The lead architect here is
insistent because Microsoft considers this
Thanks for your reply Bob and Rod!
We've got a new twist that developed in a meeting this
morning. We're moving over to project references
only. The lead architect here is insistent because
Microsoft considers this "Best Practice". From a CM
perspective, this makes it tougher in reference to
sh
> If I have dll references, I have to get all of the developers to keep
these components in the same place as I keep them for the build so that
the hint path resolves.
My first comment is having all your devs use the same directory
structure is actually a good thing. It makes source control much e
Hi, Eric
I've got a couple of variations.
For one, we have an "Assemblies" folder in VSS, and I can get from
their. It's a little not neat, because I have to do a setup each Build
separately. Also, I've found that Developers don't keep the shared
folder current...or they make minor tweaks f
14 matches
Mail list logo
