[NAntC-Dev] RE: NAntContrib update was ( Updating Nant-Contrib to latest Nant)

[Miller, K. <kev...@ir...>]

+1 as if I should have any say in the matter ;)=20

Ian, this is excellent. You did everything I had dreamed would happen
with NAntContrib and more. I think this is a good move. I was just
sitting down to start looking at what changes were necessary and was
happy to see this post.=20

I look forward to testing the .zip against our builds.

Re:
1) What if there were two tiers "optional" tasks based on their
maturity.
    Experimental - completed tasks being evaluated and considered for
                   inclusion with stable=20
    Stable - unit tested mother approved guaranteed to build against=20
             current tree

2) I agree source history is always valuable

Kevin=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian MacLean [mailto:ianm@ActiveState.com]=20
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 10:53 AM
To: Miller, Kevin
Cc: nan...@li...;
nan...@li...
Subject: NAntContrib update was ( Updating Nant-Contrib to latest Nant)

OK I bit the bullet on this today and copied all the NAntContrib tasks=20
to a new NAnt.Optional directory under my nant source tree.
I went thru and fixed all the issues Mike mentiond and then some.=20
Nothing too difficult just lots of find and replace. It all compiles and

the tasks load fine. I'm not going to commit this to the nant tree just=20
yet because:

1) I don't think we are quite agreed that we should move all those tasks

into NAnt ( although I'm starting to lean that way ) and
2) if we do move them I'll get the sf admins to import the .rcs files so

that we can preserve the history.

what I'll do is post the updated source as a zip tomorrow so that people

can try it out and test that their favourite nantcontrib tasks are still

working.

NAnt.OptionalTasks.dll and dependencies weigh in at around 1mb which=20
won't make the distribution too much larger. I'm going to propose that=20
the optional stuff goes into a subdir of bin. so:
bin\optional

this way there is less clutter in the main bin directory and users will=20
be able to  change a taskpath setting in the config file to prevent=20
scanning of NAnt.OptionalTasks.dll for tasks if they don't want to use
it.

so any feedback on the strategy to take - and stay posted for that .zip.

Ian

>I am concerned about the friction NAnt users are experiencing trying to
>contribute and in general use the NAntContrib tasks:
>http://www.iunknown.com/000278.html
>
>I would love to help clean up NAntContrib. I have some recent
experience
>from updating the StarTeam tasks. I will take a look at the items Mike
>listed and see what I can do. If anyone can relay motes of wisdom
please
>jump in.=20
>
>Kevin Miller
>
>-------
>From: Mike Roberts <mike@th...>=20
> Updating Nant-Contrib to latest Nant  =20
>2003-06-25 14:56 =20
> I spent a couple of hours looking at updating Nant-Contrb last night
to
>
> compile against the latest NAnt, and realised its a lot more than just

> changing the namespace hierarchy from Sourceforge.Nant to Nant.Core.=20
> Other updates since Nant 0.8.2 that effect Nant-Contrib include:
> - Logging has completely changed
> - Log Listeners have disappeared, so FileLogListener and the
RecordTask
>
> need to change significantly
> - Some classnames have changed (e.g. 'MsftFXSDKExternalProgramBase')
> - Some stuff has moved to Nant.Core.Types
> - OptionCollection stuff seems to have completely changed
> - and more (I think)
>=20
>



> In light of this, the fact that I don't know Nant-Contrib very well,
>and=20
> also that there aren't a significant amount of tests, I'm now
reluctant
>
> to update the whole of Nant-Contrib. I'm only using the <mkiisdir>
>task,=20
> so can just update that locally..
>=20
> ....However, I'm going to bold now and give my opinion which the
>project=20
> leads are more than free to completely disregard. :)
>=20
> I don't really understand why Nant-Contrib and Nant are 2 separate=20
> projects. I can see the value in having separation to some extent
(e.g.
>
> downloadable binaries, so that users don't have to download a bunch of

> tasks that they don't want), but on the other hand complete separation

> leads to (a) confusion in the user community and (b) the kind of=20
> situation that currently exists where there are significant
differences
>
> between the 2 trees. I personally think it would be valuable,
>therefore,=20
> if the following happened:
> 1 - As a goal, the Nant-Contrib project should be phased out
> 2 - All the work (that is going to continue to live on) from=20
> Nant-Contrib should be (task-by-task) brought into the Nant project,=20
> maybe under a separate directory called 'optional-tasks'[a]
> 3 - The Nant buildfile should compile both the NAnt Core, the existing

> extra tasks and the 'optional-tasks' so that the latter of these don't

> get out of sync with changes to the core.
> 4 - ... a result of which would be the tasks imported from
Nant-Contrib
>
> would also be updated to fit in with latest NAnt
>=20
> [a] - I actually think that some of the (smaller) tasks from=20
> Nant-Contrib maybe better off in the main Nant download. Perhaps the=20
> NAnt committee would want to think about each task on a case-by-case
>basis.
>=20
> Of course, I'm a newbie round here, and there are probably very good=20
> reasons for the separation of the projects and I'm just being=20
> presumptuous to suggest such a plan of action. :)
>=20
> Cheers,
>=20
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
>Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting
Partner.
>Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly
Commission!
>INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php
>_______________________________________________
>nant-developers mailing list
>nan...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
> =20
>