You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Jeff Conrad <je...@gmail.com> on 2012/08/21 17:14:22 UTC
Re: Should .project, .flexLibProperties, and .actionScriptProperties
be checked in to source control? (Was: svn commit: r1375263 [1/2] - in /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects)
Hi Carol,
I think Justin's question was more oriented around what's the best
practice for checking in .project, .flexLibProperties, and
.actionScriptProperties files? Should they be included in source
control or ignored?
I took a peek at some of the files included and they contain some
important information that would make any potential contributor's job
easy. For instance, in projects/framework/.actionScriptProperties,
there are a ton of additional compiler arguments that if I had to put
into every project like that, I'd go crazy:
additionalCompilerArguments="-keep-as3-metadata=Bindable,Managed,ChangeEvent,NonCommittingChangeEvent,Transient
-load-config+=framework-config.xml
--include-file=defaults.css,../defaults.css
-include-file=defaults-3.0.0.css,../defaults-3.0.0.css
-include-file=Assets.swf,../assets/Assets.swf
-include-file=assets/CalendarIcon.png,../assets/CalendarIcon.png
-namespace=library://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml
-namespace+=http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml
-resource-bundle-list=bundles.properties -library-path= -locale="
I'm in favor of either keeping this information in source control. I
don't want to have to remember all of that to make sure I'm building
the SDK correctly.
I suppose the other question that has to be asked, though, is whether
or not Flash Builder would be making different SWCs than the ant
scripts or where all of that information is included. It looks like
the ant scripts set the same arguments directly in the build.xml file.
When someone gets time, maybe we can move all those arguments to
framework-config.xml file and have both the .actionScriptProperties
and build.xml file reference those so it's more DRY? I'll do it
sometime this week, but someone is more than welcome to beat me to it.
Does anyone know if there's a quirk in the compiler that causes
information set in a flex-config.xml file to be ignored by either the
Ant or Flash Builder? If it's a bug in the compiler, I'll just leave
well enough alone until after Falcon.
Jeff
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> It loos like lots of newlines got introduced but no code changes other
> than the headers. I hink I'll rollback the commit and do it again.
>
> Thanks for pointing that out. I usually diff my changes before committing
> them but I obviously didn't this time.
>
> Carol
>
> On 8/20/12 6 :12PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >Noticed the ".project", ".actionScriptProperties" and
> >".flexLibProperties" mark marked as modified. Are they spposed to be
> >checked in?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Justin
Re: Should .project, .flexLibProperties, and .actionScriptProperties
be checked in to source control? (Was: svn commit: r1375263 [1/2] - in /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects)
Posted by Omar Gonzalez <om...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jeff Conrad <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think the Flash Builder Project files are going to give
> IntelliJ people any issues. I wouldn't object to having machine
> neutral IntelliJ files in there as well, as long as the various
> compiler specific information is in a flex-config.xml type file. That
> way all the various IDEs use that information and people know to look
> at the one specific place to see that configuration and change it if
> necessary.
>
> Is there any reason the compiler config information can't be moved to
> a flex-config.xml type file and still work in Flash Builder and Ant?
>
> Jeff
I don't think the FB project files would cause issues to IntelliJ users, I
just think its messy to include those in source control, its called source
control not source and IDE configuration file control... :P
I can understand not wanting to set those up by hand, I just don't like to
keep those files around. I've never tried making them machine neutral,
IntelliJ or Flash Builder, so I can try to give this a shot for IntelliJ. I
have a Windows machine here I can run tests on.
I still think its messy to keep these files in source control.
-omar
Re: Should .project, .flexLibProperties, and .actionScriptProperties
be checked in to source control? (Was: svn commit: r1375263 [1/2] - in /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects)
Posted by Jeff Conrad <je...@gmail.com>.
I don't think the Flash Builder Project files are going to give
IntelliJ people any issues. I wouldn't object to having machine
neutral IntelliJ files in there as well, as long as the various
compiler specific information is in a flex-config.xml type file. That
way all the various IDEs use that information and people know to look
at the one specific place to see that configuration and change it if
necessary.
Is there any reason the compiler config information can't be moved to
a flex-config.xml type file and still work in Flash Builder and Ant?
Jeff
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
> First off, these files were checked in but had the wrong headers so FB
> barfed on them. I was just correcting that.
>
> Yes, I believe they should be checked in, but they must be system neutral
> so anyone can use them. If you make any personal changes to them those
> changes should not be checked in.
>
> If someone wants to check in corresponding build files for IntelliJ that's
> fine with me as long as they are system neutral.
>
> System neutral means the files work on OSX or Windows and it doesn't
> matter where your SDK is.
>
> I think FB project files are a huge pain to set up so I would not want to
> have to do it myself, even if there are instructions somewhere.
>
> Carol
>
> On 8/21/12 11 :19AM, "Omar Gonzalez" <om...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Jeff Conrad <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Carol,
>>>
>>> I think Justin's question was more oriented around what's the best
>>> practice for checking in .project, .flexLibProperties, and
>>> .actionScriptProperties files? Should they be included in source
>>> control or ignored?
>>>
>>> I took a peek at some of the files included and they contain some
>>> important information that would make any potential contributor's job
>>> easy. For instance, in projects/framework/.actionScriptProperties,
>>> there are a ton of additional compiler arguments that if I had to put
>>> into every project like that, I'd go crazy:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>additionalCompilerArguments="-keep-as3-metadata=Bindable,Managed,ChangeEv
>>>ent,NonCommittingChangeEvent,Transient
>>> -load-config+=framework-config.xml
>>> --include-file=defaults.css,../defaults.css
>>> -include-file=defaults-3.0.0.css,../defaults-3.0.0.css
>>> -include-file=Assets.swf,../assets/Assets.swf
>>> -include-file=assets/CalendarIcon.png,../assets/CalendarIcon.png
>>> -namespace=library://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml
>>> -namespace+=http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml
>>> -resource-bundle-list=bundles.properties -library-path= -locale="
>>>
>>> I'm in favor of either keeping this information in source control. I
>>> don't want to have to remember all of that to make sure I'm building
>>> the SDK correctly.
>>>
>>> I suppose the other question that has to be asked, though, is whether
>>> or not Flash Builder would be making different SWCs than the ant
>>> scripts or where all of that information is included. It looks like
>>> the ant scripts set the same arguments directly in the build.xml file.
>>>
>>> When someone gets time, maybe we can move all those arguments to
>>> framework-config.xml file and have both the .actionScriptProperties
>>> and build.xml file reference those so it's more DRY? I'll do it
>>> sometime this week, but someone is more than welcome to beat me to it.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know if there's a quirk in the compiler that causes
>>> information set in a flex-config.xml file to be ignored by either the
>>> Ant or Flash Builder? If it's a bug in the compiler, I'll just leave
>>> well enough alone until after Falcon.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>
>>Personally I would prefer that these files are not checked in, and that
>>the
>>necessary information for setting up projects is posted in the README and
>>in Confluence.
>>
>>I get where you're coming from in that its easier to get up and running in
>>Flash Builder, but you must also remember that not everybody uses Flash
>>Builder (I don't and never will) so we still need to make this information
>>easily found for people using other IDEs, such as IntelliJ, or even
>>TextMate (I know, not really an IDE, but still).
>>
>>I would also say this is kind of the reason we use ANT to build the
>>project, in other words, to decouple the source code from relying on any
>>specific coding IDE.
>>
>>-omar
>
Re: Should .project, .flexLibProperties, and
.actionScriptProperties be checked in to source control? (Was: svn commit:
r1375263 [1/2] - in /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects)
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
First off, these files were checked in but had the wrong headers so FB
barfed on them. I was just correcting that.
Yes, I believe they should be checked in, but they must be system neutral
so anyone can use them. If you make any personal changes to them those
changes should not be checked in.
If someone wants to check in corresponding build files for IntelliJ that's
fine with me as long as they are system neutral.
System neutral means the files work on OSX or Windows and it doesn't
matter where your SDK is.
I think FB project files are a huge pain to set up so I would not want to
have to do it myself, even if there are instructions somewhere.
Carol
On 8/21/12 11 :19AM, "Omar Gonzalez" <om...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Jeff Conrad <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Carol,
>>
>> I think Justin's question was more oriented around what's the best
>> practice for checking in .project, .flexLibProperties, and
>> .actionScriptProperties files? Should they be included in source
>> control or ignored?
>>
>> I took a peek at some of the files included and they contain some
>> important information that would make any potential contributor's job
>> easy. For instance, in projects/framework/.actionScriptProperties,
>> there are a ton of additional compiler arguments that if I had to put
>> into every project like that, I'd go crazy:
>>
>>
>>
>>additionalCompilerArguments="-keep-as3-metadata=Bindable,Managed,ChangeEv
>>ent,NonCommittingChangeEvent,Transient
>> -load-config+=framework-config.xml
>> --include-file=defaults.css,../defaults.css
>> -include-file=defaults-3.0.0.css,../defaults-3.0.0.css
>> -include-file=Assets.swf,../assets/Assets.swf
>> -include-file=assets/CalendarIcon.png,../assets/CalendarIcon.png
>> -namespace=library://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml
>> -namespace+=http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml
>> -resource-bundle-list=bundles.properties -library-path= -locale="
>>
>> I'm in favor of either keeping this information in source control. I
>> don't want to have to remember all of that to make sure I'm building
>> the SDK correctly.
>>
>> I suppose the other question that has to be asked, though, is whether
>> or not Flash Builder would be making different SWCs than the ant
>> scripts or where all of that information is included. It looks like
>> the ant scripts set the same arguments directly in the build.xml file.
>>
>> When someone gets time, maybe we can move all those arguments to
>> framework-config.xml file and have both the .actionScriptProperties
>> and build.xml file reference those so it's more DRY? I'll do it
>> sometime this week, but someone is more than welcome to beat me to it.
>>
>> Does anyone know if there's a quirk in the compiler that causes
>> information set in a flex-config.xml file to be ignored by either the
>> Ant or Flash Builder? If it's a bug in the compiler, I'll just leave
>> well enough alone until after Falcon.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>
>Personally I would prefer that these files are not checked in, and that
>the
>necessary information for setting up projects is posted in the README and
>in Confluence.
>
>I get where you're coming from in that its easier to get up and running in
>Flash Builder, but you must also remember that not everybody uses Flash
>Builder (I don't and never will) so we still need to make this information
>easily found for people using other IDEs, such as IntelliJ, or even
>TextMate (I know, not really an IDE, but still).
>
>I would also say this is kind of the reason we use ANT to build the
>project, in other words, to decouple the source code from relying on any
>specific coding IDE.
>
>-omar
Re: Should .project, .flexLibProperties, and .actionScriptProperties
be checked in to source control? (Was: svn commit: r1375263 [1/2] - in /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects)
Posted by Omar Gonzalez <om...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Jeff Conrad <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Carol,
>
> I think Justin's question was more oriented around what's the best
> practice for checking in .project, .flexLibProperties, and
> .actionScriptProperties files? Should they be included in source
> control or ignored?
>
> I took a peek at some of the files included and they contain some
> important information that would make any potential contributor's job
> easy. For instance, in projects/framework/.actionScriptProperties,
> there are a ton of additional compiler arguments that if I had to put
> into every project like that, I'd go crazy:
>
>
> additionalCompilerArguments="-keep-as3-metadata=Bindable,Managed,ChangeEvent,NonCommittingChangeEvent,Transient
> -load-config+=framework-config.xml
> --include-file=defaults.css,../defaults.css
> -include-file=defaults-3.0.0.css,../defaults-3.0.0.css
> -include-file=Assets.swf,../assets/Assets.swf
> -include-file=assets/CalendarIcon.png,../assets/CalendarIcon.png
> -namespace=library://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml
> -namespace+=http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml
> -resource-bundle-list=bundles.properties -library-path= -locale="
>
> I'm in favor of either keeping this information in source control. I
> don't want to have to remember all of that to make sure I'm building
> the SDK correctly.
>
> I suppose the other question that has to be asked, though, is whether
> or not Flash Builder would be making different SWCs than the ant
> scripts or where all of that information is included. It looks like
> the ant scripts set the same arguments directly in the build.xml file.
>
> When someone gets time, maybe we can move all those arguments to
> framework-config.xml file and have both the .actionScriptProperties
> and build.xml file reference those so it's more DRY? I'll do it
> sometime this week, but someone is more than welcome to beat me to it.
>
> Does anyone know if there's a quirk in the compiler that causes
> information set in a flex-config.xml file to be ignored by either the
> Ant or Flash Builder? If it's a bug in the compiler, I'll just leave
> well enough alone until after Falcon.
>
> Jeff
>
Personally I would prefer that these files are not checked in, and that the
necessary information for setting up projects is posted in the README and
in Confluence.
I get where you're coming from in that its easier to get up and running in
Flash Builder, but you must also remember that not everybody uses Flash
Builder (I don't and never will) so we still need to make this information
easily found for people using other IDEs, such as IntelliJ, or even
TextMate (I know, not really an IDE, but still).
I would also say this is kind of the reason we use ANT to build the
project, in other words, to decouple the source code from relying on any
specific coding IDE.
-omar
Re: Should .project, .flexLibProperties,
and .actionScriptProperties be checked in to source control? (Was: svn commit:
r1375263 [1/2] - in /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects)
Posted by Jose Barragan Andrade <pe...@me.com>.
-1 too, derived IDE config does nothing here
On Aug 23, 2012, at 12:49 AM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> -1 as well. this does not bring us nothing good...
>
> 2012/8/23 Ryan Frishberg <fr...@gmail.com>
Jose
Re: Should .project, .flexLibProperties, and .actionScriptProperties
be checked in to source control? (Was: svn commit: r1375263 [1/2] - in /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects)
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>.
-1 as well. this does not bring us nothing good...
2012/8/23 Ryan Frishberg <fr...@gmail.com>
> -1 to this change as well. I really think that the FB project files should
> continue to be in source control.
>
> -Ryan
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > If the decision is made that these files should be moved out of the
> > > frameworks directory and into the ide/flashbuilder sub-directory then a
> > > JIRA issue should be entered so someone can take ownership of this
> task.
> > > If this is done I think there needs to be some mechanism of copying the
> > > files back into a sdk structure. Something similar could be done for
> > > IntelliJ files or whatever other IDEs are used.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > -1 to this change. Let us please not add any more complexity (yet) to
> the
> > dev workflow.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/22/12 9 :30AM, "Carol Frampton" <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Frankly I don't see what the big deal is. These files have been there
> > > >since day 1. They were set up carefully (not by me). They are
> > > >OS-independent and work no matter where the SDK is. If I hadn't
> screwed
> > > >up the headers and then screwed up fixing them this thread wouldn't
> > exist.
> > > > There are hidden files (at least on OSX) so you don't even see them
> > > >unless you go looking and right now they aren't in the source distro.
> > > >
> > > >It is already a pain in the neck to do development because we can't
> have
> > > >all the Adobe stuff in the tree. Now you are telling me to debug
> any, I
> > > >need to build the combined tree, and then create and edit 20+ files in
> > 10+
> > > >directories before I can do anything. I am not a lover of FB but for
> > now
> > > >it is what I know best. If you don't want to use them don't use them.
> > > >
> > > >Carol
> > > >
> > > >On 8/21/12 7 :05PM, "Michael Baird" <mb...@kairyt.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Rather than a readme, how about <file>.sample? .project.sample,
> > > >>.actionScriptProperties.sample, etc...
> > > >>Then it becomes more apparent these are environment-specific samples
> > and
> > > >>dont carry the maintenance weight of a thorough readme.
> > > >>
> > > >>Imagine also .project.mac.sample, .project.linux.sample, etc, for
> > > >>platform-specific settings, too.
> > > >>
> > > >>On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski
> > > >>><nicholas@spoon.as
> > > >>> >wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > I agree with what Jeffery brought up from the previous thread. My
> > > >>>deal is
> > > >>> > if it is in the source control, and I need to make changes to my
> > > >>> > environment that are made in these files, there is a very real
> > chance
> > > >>> those
> > > >>> > changes get committed back to the svn. Conversely, if somebody
> > makes
> > > >>>a
> > > >>> > change to the 'generic' file, do I have to overwrite my changes
> to
> > my
> > > >>>IDE
> > > >>> > settings in order to get the rest of the changeset in place? It
> > just
> > > >>> > starts getting really messy, particular for those IDE settings
> > files
> > > >>>that
> > > >>> > would be project or computer specific.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> I agree that it will get clumsy. But if I have project/source
> > path/swc
> > > >>> library dependencies and compiler arguments, how will I let other
> > know
> > > >>> about this? List everything in a README? Then there is a very
> good
> > > >>>chance
> > > >>> that the README will get out of sync with the project over the
> course
> > > >>>of
> > > >>> time.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> IMHO, a little bit of clumsiness is fine because it makes it so
> much
> > > >>>easier
> > > >>> to share and set up projects. Once again, lowering the barrier to
> > > >>> contribute to Apache Flex.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Om
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > -Nick
> > > >>> > On Aug 21, 2012 2:28 PM, "Jeffry Houser" <je...@dot-com-it.com>
> > > >>>wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > Last time this came up; the decision leaned towards:
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > "You can do what you want in your whiteboard; but don't commit
> > > >>>project
> > > >>> > > files anywhere else."
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > Sometimes it just makes things harder; and projects are not
> > always
> > > >>> > easily
> > > >>> > > transferable between machines.
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > On 8/21/2012 11:14 AM, Jeff Conrad wrote:
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > >> Hi Carol,
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >> I think Justin's question was more oriented around what's the
> > best
> > > >>> > >> practice for checking in .project, .flexLibProperties, and
> > > >>> > >> .actionScriptProperties files? Should they be included in
> > source
> > > >>> > >> control or ignored?
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >> I took a peek at some of the files included and they contain
> > some
> > > >>> > >> important information that would make any potential
> > contributor's
> > > >>>job
> > > >>> > >> easy. For instance, in
> > > >>>projects/framework/.**actionScriptProperties,
> > > >>> > >> there are a ton of additional compiler arguments that if I had
> > to
> > > >>>put
> > > >>> > >> into every project like that, I'd go crazy:
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >>
> additionalCompilerArguments="-**keep-as3-metadata=Bindable,**
> > > >>> > >> Managed,ChangeEvent,**NonCommittingChangeEvent,**Transient
> > > >>> > >> -load-config+=framework-**config.xml
> > > >>> > >> --include-file=defaults.css,..**/defaults.css
> > > >>> > >> -include-file=defaults-3.0.0.**css,../defaults-3.0.0.css
> > > >>> > >> -include-file=Assets.swf,../**assets/Assets.swf
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>>-include-file=assets/**CalendarIcon.png,../assets/**CalendarIcon.png
> > > >>> > >> -namespace=library://ns.adobe.**com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml<
> > > >>> > http://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml>
> > > >>> > >> -namespace+=http://www.adobe.**com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml<
> > > >>> > http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml>
> > > >>> > >> -resource-bundle-list=bundles.**properties -library-path=
> > > >>>-locale="
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >> I'm in favor of either keeping this information in source
> > control.
> > > >>> I
> > > >>> > >> don't want to have to remember all of that to make sure I'm
> > > >>>building
> > > >>> > >> the SDK correctly.
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >> I suppose the other question that has to be asked, though, is
> > > >>>whether
> > > >>> > >> or not Flash Builder would be making different SWCs than the
> ant
> > > >>> > >> scripts or where all of that information is included. It
> looks
> > > >>>like
> > > >>> > >> the ant scripts set the same arguments directly in the
> build.xml
> > > >>>file.
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >> When someone gets time, maybe we can move all those arguments
> to
> > > >>> > >> framework-config.xml file and have both the
> > > >>>.actionScriptProperties
> > > >>> > >> and build.xml file reference those so it's more DRY? I'll do
> it
> > > >>> > >> sometime this week, but someone is more than welcome to beat
> me
> > to
> > > >>>it.
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >> Does anyone know if there's a quirk in the compiler that
> causes
> > > >>> > >> information set in a flex-config.xml file to be ignored by
> > either
> > > >>>the
> > > >>> > >> Ant or Flash Builder? If it's a bug in the compiler, I'll
> just
> > > >>>leave
> > > >>> > >> well enough alone until after Falcon.
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >> Jeff
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Carol Frampton
> > > >>><cf...@adobe.com>
> > > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > >>> > >>
> > > >>> > >>> It loos like lots of newlines got introduced but no code
> > changes
> > > >>> other
> > > >>> > >>> than the headers. I hink I'll rollback the commit and do it
> > > >>>again.
> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >>> > >>> Thanks for pointing that out. I usually diff my changes
> before
> > > >>> > >>> committing
> > > >>> > >>> them but I obviously didn't this time.
> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >>> > >>> Carol
> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >>> > >>> On 8/20/12 6 :12PM, "Justin Mclean" <
> justin@classsoftware.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >>> > >>> Hi,
> > > >>> > >>>>
> > > >>> > >>>> Noticed the ".project", ".actionScriptProperties" and
> > > >>> > >>>> ".flexLibProperties" mark marked as modified. Are they
> spposed
> > > >>>to be
> > > >>> > >>>> checked in?
> > > >>> > >>>>
> > > >>> > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>> > >>>> Justin
> > > >>> > >>>>
> > > >>> > >>>
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F: +34 912 35 57 77
<http://www.codeoscopic.com>
CODEOSCOPIC S.A. <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
Avd. del General Perón, 32
Planta 10, Puertas P-Q
28020 Madrid
Re: Should .project, .flexLibProperties, and .actionScriptProperties
be checked in to source control? (Was: svn commit: r1375263 [1/2] - in /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects)
Posted by Ryan Frishberg <fr...@gmail.com>.
-1 to this change as well. I really think that the FB project files should
continue to be in source control.
-Ryan
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If the decision is made that these files should be moved out of the
> > frameworks directory and into the ide/flashbuilder sub-directory then a
> > JIRA issue should be entered so someone can take ownership of this task.
> > If this is done I think there needs to be some mechanism of copying the
> > files back into a sdk structure. Something similar could be done for
> > IntelliJ files or whatever other IDEs are used.
> >
> >
>
> -1 to this change. Let us please not add any more complexity (yet) to the
> dev workflow.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
>
> > Carol
> >
> >
> > On 8/22/12 9 :30AM, "Carol Frampton" <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Frankly I don't see what the big deal is. These files have been there
> > >since day 1. They were set up carefully (not by me). They are
> > >OS-independent and work no matter where the SDK is. If I hadn't screwed
> > >up the headers and then screwed up fixing them this thread wouldn't
> exist.
> > > There are hidden files (at least on OSX) so you don't even see them
> > >unless you go looking and right now they aren't in the source distro.
> > >
> > >It is already a pain in the neck to do development because we can't have
> > >all the Adobe stuff in the tree. Now you are telling me to debug any, I
> > >need to build the combined tree, and then create and edit 20+ files in
> 10+
> > >directories before I can do anything. I am not a lover of FB but for
> now
> > >it is what I know best. If you don't want to use them don't use them.
> > >
> > >Carol
> > >
> > >On 8/21/12 7 :05PM, "Michael Baird" <mb...@kairyt.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Rather than a readme, how about <file>.sample? .project.sample,
> > >>.actionScriptProperties.sample, etc...
> > >>Then it becomes more apparent these are environment-specific samples
> and
> > >>dont carry the maintenance weight of a thorough readme.
> > >>
> > >>Imagine also .project.mac.sample, .project.linux.sample, etc, for
> > >>platform-specific settings, too.
> > >>
> > >>On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski
> > >>><nicholas@spoon.as
> > >>> >wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > I agree with what Jeffery brought up from the previous thread. My
> > >>>deal is
> > >>> > if it is in the source control, and I need to make changes to my
> > >>> > environment that are made in these files, there is a very real
> chance
> > >>> those
> > >>> > changes get committed back to the svn. Conversely, if somebody
> makes
> > >>>a
> > >>> > change to the 'generic' file, do I have to overwrite my changes to
> my
> > >>>IDE
> > >>> > settings in order to get the rest of the changeset in place? It
> just
> > >>> > starts getting really messy, particular for those IDE settings
> files
> > >>>that
> > >>> > would be project or computer specific.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> I agree that it will get clumsy. But if I have project/source
> path/swc
> > >>> library dependencies and compiler arguments, how will I let other
> know
> > >>> about this? List everything in a README? Then there is a very good
> > >>>chance
> > >>> that the README will get out of sync with the project over the course
> > >>>of
> > >>> time.
> > >>>
> > >>> IMHO, a little bit of clumsiness is fine because it makes it so much
> > >>>easier
> > >>> to share and set up projects. Once again, lowering the barrier to
> > >>> contribute to Apache Flex.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Om
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> > -Nick
> > >>> > On Aug 21, 2012 2:28 PM, "Jeffry Houser" <je...@dot-com-it.com>
> > >>>wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Last time this came up; the decision leaned towards:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > "You can do what you want in your whiteboard; but don't commit
> > >>>project
> > >>> > > files anywhere else."
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Sometimes it just makes things harder; and projects are not
> always
> > >>> > easily
> > >>> > > transferable between machines.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > On 8/21/2012 11:14 AM, Jeff Conrad wrote:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >> Hi Carol,
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> I think Justin's question was more oriented around what's the
> best
> > >>> > >> practice for checking in .project, .flexLibProperties, and
> > >>> > >> .actionScriptProperties files? Should they be included in
> source
> > >>> > >> control or ignored?
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> I took a peek at some of the files included and they contain
> some
> > >>> > >> important information that would make any potential
> contributor's
> > >>>job
> > >>> > >> easy. For instance, in
> > >>>projects/framework/.**actionScriptProperties,
> > >>> > >> there are a ton of additional compiler arguments that if I had
> to
> > >>>put
> > >>> > >> into every project like that, I'd go crazy:
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> additionalCompilerArguments="-**keep-as3-metadata=Bindable,**
> > >>> > >> Managed,ChangeEvent,**NonCommittingChangeEvent,**Transient
> > >>> > >> -load-config+=framework-**config.xml
> > >>> > >> --include-file=defaults.css,..**/defaults.css
> > >>> > >> -include-file=defaults-3.0.0.**css,../defaults-3.0.0.css
> > >>> > >> -include-file=Assets.swf,../**assets/Assets.swf
> > >>> > >>
> > >>>-include-file=assets/**CalendarIcon.png,../assets/**CalendarIcon.png
> > >>> > >> -namespace=library://ns.adobe.**com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml<
> > >>> > http://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml>
> > >>> > >> -namespace+=http://www.adobe.**com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml<
> > >>> > http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml>
> > >>> > >> -resource-bundle-list=bundles.**properties -library-path=
> > >>>-locale="
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> I'm in favor of either keeping this information in source
> control.
> > >>> I
> > >>> > >> don't want to have to remember all of that to make sure I'm
> > >>>building
> > >>> > >> the SDK correctly.
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> I suppose the other question that has to be asked, though, is
> > >>>whether
> > >>> > >> or not Flash Builder would be making different SWCs than the ant
> > >>> > >> scripts or where all of that information is included. It looks
> > >>>like
> > >>> > >> the ant scripts set the same arguments directly in the build.xml
> > >>>file.
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> When someone gets time, maybe we can move all those arguments to
> > >>> > >> framework-config.xml file and have both the
> > >>>.actionScriptProperties
> > >>> > >> and build.xml file reference those so it's more DRY? I'll do it
> > >>> > >> sometime this week, but someone is more than welcome to beat me
> to
> > >>>it.
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> Does anyone know if there's a quirk in the compiler that causes
> > >>> > >> information set in a flex-config.xml file to be ignored by
> either
> > >>>the
> > >>> > >> Ant or Flash Builder? If it's a bug in the compiler, I'll just
> > >>>leave
> > >>> > >> well enough alone until after Falcon.
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> Jeff
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Carol Frampton
> > >>><cf...@adobe.com>
> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >>> It loos like lots of newlines got introduced but no code
> changes
> > >>> other
> > >>> > >>> than the headers. I hink I'll rollback the commit and do it
> > >>>again.
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> Thanks for pointing that out. I usually diff my changes before
> > >>> > >>> committing
> > >>> > >>> them but I obviously didn't this time.
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> Carol
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> On 8/20/12 6 :12PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >>> Hi,
> > >>> > >>>>
> > >>> > >>>> Noticed the ".project", ".actionScriptProperties" and
> > >>> > >>>> ".flexLibProperties" mark marked as modified. Are they spposed
> > >>>to be
> > >>> > >>>> checked in?
> > >>> > >>>>
> > >>> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>> > >>>> Justin
> > >>> > >>>>
> > >>> > >>>
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: Should .project, .flexLibProperties, and .actionScriptProperties
be checked in to source control? (Was: svn commit: r1375263 [1/2] - in /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects)
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
>
> If the decision is made that these files should be moved out of the
> frameworks directory and into the ide/flashbuilder sub-directory then a
> JIRA issue should be entered so someone can take ownership of this task.
> If this is done I think there needs to be some mechanism of copying the
> files back into a sdk structure. Something similar could be done for
> IntelliJ files or whatever other IDEs are used.
>
>
-1 to this change. Let us please not add any more complexity (yet) to the
dev workflow.
Thanks,
Om
> Carol
>
>
> On 8/22/12 9 :30AM, "Carol Frampton" <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >Frankly I don't see what the big deal is. These files have been there
> >since day 1. They were set up carefully (not by me). They are
> >OS-independent and work no matter where the SDK is. If I hadn't screwed
> >up the headers and then screwed up fixing them this thread wouldn't exist.
> > There are hidden files (at least on OSX) so you don't even see them
> >unless you go looking and right now they aren't in the source distro.
> >
> >It is already a pain in the neck to do development because we can't have
> >all the Adobe stuff in the tree. Now you are telling me to debug any, I
> >need to build the combined tree, and then create and edit 20+ files in 10+
> >directories before I can do anything. I am not a lover of FB but for now
> >it is what I know best. If you don't want to use them don't use them.
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >On 8/21/12 7 :05PM, "Michael Baird" <mb...@kairyt.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Rather than a readme, how about <file>.sample? .project.sample,
> >>.actionScriptProperties.sample, etc...
> >>Then it becomes more apparent these are environment-specific samples and
> >>dont carry the maintenance weight of a thorough readme.
> >>
> >>Imagine also .project.mac.sample, .project.linux.sample, etc, for
> >>platform-specific settings, too.
> >>
> >>On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski
> >>><nicholas@spoon.as
> >>> >wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > I agree with what Jeffery brought up from the previous thread. My
> >>>deal is
> >>> > if it is in the source control, and I need to make changes to my
> >>> > environment that are made in these files, there is a very real chance
> >>> those
> >>> > changes get committed back to the svn. Conversely, if somebody makes
> >>>a
> >>> > change to the 'generic' file, do I have to overwrite my changes to my
> >>>IDE
> >>> > settings in order to get the rest of the changeset in place? It just
> >>> > starts getting really messy, particular for those IDE settings files
> >>>that
> >>> > would be project or computer specific.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> I agree that it will get clumsy. But if I have project/source path/swc
> >>> library dependencies and compiler arguments, how will I let other know
> >>> about this? List everything in a README? Then there is a very good
> >>>chance
> >>> that the README will get out of sync with the project over the course
> >>>of
> >>> time.
> >>>
> >>> IMHO, a little bit of clumsiness is fine because it makes it so much
> >>>easier
> >>> to share and set up projects. Once again, lowering the barrier to
> >>> contribute to Apache Flex.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Om
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > -Nick
> >>> > On Aug 21, 2012 2:28 PM, "Jeffry Houser" <je...@dot-com-it.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Last time this came up; the decision leaned towards:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > "You can do what you want in your whiteboard; but don't commit
> >>>project
> >>> > > files anywhere else."
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Sometimes it just makes things harder; and projects are not always
> >>> > easily
> >>> > > transferable between machines.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On 8/21/2012 11:14 AM, Jeff Conrad wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >> Hi Carol,
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> I think Justin's question was more oriented around what's the best
> >>> > >> practice for checking in .project, .flexLibProperties, and
> >>> > >> .actionScriptProperties files? Should they be included in source
> >>> > >> control or ignored?
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> I took a peek at some of the files included and they contain some
> >>> > >> important information that would make any potential contributor's
> >>>job
> >>> > >> easy. For instance, in
> >>>projects/framework/.**actionScriptProperties,
> >>> > >> there are a ton of additional compiler arguments that if I had to
> >>>put
> >>> > >> into every project like that, I'd go crazy:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> additionalCompilerArguments="-**keep-as3-metadata=Bindable,**
> >>> > >> Managed,ChangeEvent,**NonCommittingChangeEvent,**Transient
> >>> > >> -load-config+=framework-**config.xml
> >>> > >> --include-file=defaults.css,..**/defaults.css
> >>> > >> -include-file=defaults-3.0.0.**css,../defaults-3.0.0.css
> >>> > >> -include-file=Assets.swf,../**assets/Assets.swf
> >>> > >>
> >>>-include-file=assets/**CalendarIcon.png,../assets/**CalendarIcon.png
> >>> > >> -namespace=library://ns.adobe.**com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml<
> >>> > http://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml>
> >>> > >> -namespace+=http://www.adobe.**com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml<
> >>> > http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml>
> >>> > >> -resource-bundle-list=bundles.**properties -library-path=
> >>>-locale="
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> I'm in favor of either keeping this information in source control.
> >>> I
> >>> > >> don't want to have to remember all of that to make sure I'm
> >>>building
> >>> > >> the SDK correctly.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> I suppose the other question that has to be asked, though, is
> >>>whether
> >>> > >> or not Flash Builder would be making different SWCs than the ant
> >>> > >> scripts or where all of that information is included. It looks
> >>>like
> >>> > >> the ant scripts set the same arguments directly in the build.xml
> >>>file.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> When someone gets time, maybe we can move all those arguments to
> >>> > >> framework-config.xml file and have both the
> >>>.actionScriptProperties
> >>> > >> and build.xml file reference those so it's more DRY? I'll do it
> >>> > >> sometime this week, but someone is more than welcome to beat me to
> >>>it.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> Does anyone know if there's a quirk in the compiler that causes
> >>> > >> information set in a flex-config.xml file to be ignored by either
> >>>the
> >>> > >> Ant or Flash Builder? If it's a bug in the compiler, I'll just
> >>>leave
> >>> > >> well enough alone until after Falcon.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> Jeff
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Carol Frampton
> >>><cf...@adobe.com>
> >>> > >> wrote:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>> It loos like lots of newlines got introduced but no code changes
> >>> other
> >>> > >>> than the headers. I hink I'll rollback the commit and do it
> >>>again.
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> Thanks for pointing that out. I usually diff my changes before
> >>> > >>> committing
> >>> > >>> them but I obviously didn't this time.
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> Carol
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> On 8/20/12 6 :12PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> Hi,
> >>> > >>>>
> >>> > >>>> Noticed the ".project", ".actionScriptProperties" and
> >>> > >>>> ".flexLibProperties" mark marked as modified. Are they spposed
> >>>to be
> >>> > >>>> checked in?
> >>> > >>>>
> >>> > >>>> Thanks,
> >>> > >>>> Justin
> >>> > >>>>
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >
>
>
Re: Should .project, .flexLibProperties, and
.actionScriptProperties be checked in to source control? (Was: svn commit:
r1375263 [1/2] - in /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects)
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
I just fixed the FB projects that are in frameworks so they can be used
and FB won't barf on them.
If the decision is made that these files should be moved out of the
frameworks directory and into the ide/flashbuilder sub-directory then a
JIRA issue should be entered so someone can take ownership of this task.
If this is done I think there needs to be some mechanism of copying the
files back into a sdk structure. Something similar could be done for
IntelliJ files or whatever other IDEs are used.
Carol
On 8/22/12 9 :30AM, "Carol Frampton" <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>Frankly I don't see what the big deal is. These files have been there
>since day 1. They were set up carefully (not by me). They are
>OS-independent and work no matter where the SDK is. If I hadn't screwed
>up the headers and then screwed up fixing them this thread wouldn't exist.
> There are hidden files (at least on OSX) so you don't even see them
>unless you go looking and right now they aren't in the source distro.
>
>It is already a pain in the neck to do development because we can't have
>all the Adobe stuff in the tree. Now you are telling me to debug any, I
>need to build the combined tree, and then create and edit 20+ files in 10+
>directories before I can do anything. I am not a lover of FB but for now
>it is what I know best. If you don't want to use them don't use them.
>
>Carol
>
>On 8/21/12 7 :05PM, "Michael Baird" <mb...@kairyt.com> wrote:
>
>>Rather than a readme, how about <file>.sample? .project.sample,
>>.actionScriptProperties.sample, etc...
>>Then it becomes more apparent these are environment-specific samples and
>>dont carry the maintenance weight of a thorough readme.
>>
>>Imagine also .project.mac.sample, .project.linux.sample, etc, for
>>platform-specific settings, too.
>>
>>On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski
>>><nicholas@spoon.as
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>> > I agree with what Jeffery brought up from the previous thread. My
>>>deal is
>>> > if it is in the source control, and I need to make changes to my
>>> > environment that are made in these files, there is a very real chance
>>> those
>>> > changes get committed back to the svn. Conversely, if somebody makes
>>>a
>>> > change to the 'generic' file, do I have to overwrite my changes to my
>>>IDE
>>> > settings in order to get the rest of the changeset in place? It just
>>> > starts getting really messy, particular for those IDE settings files
>>>that
>>> > would be project or computer specific.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> I agree that it will get clumsy. But if I have project/source path/swc
>>> library dependencies and compiler arguments, how will I let other know
>>> about this? List everything in a README? Then there is a very good
>>>chance
>>> that the README will get out of sync with the project over the course
>>>of
>>> time.
>>>
>>> IMHO, a little bit of clumsiness is fine because it makes it so much
>>>easier
>>> to share and set up projects. Once again, lowering the barrier to
>>> contribute to Apache Flex.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Om
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > -Nick
>>> > On Aug 21, 2012 2:28 PM, "Jeffry Houser" <je...@dot-com-it.com>
>>>wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Last time this came up; the decision leaned towards:
>>> > >
>>> > > "You can do what you want in your whiteboard; but don't commit
>>>project
>>> > > files anywhere else."
>>> > >
>>> > > Sometimes it just makes things harder; and projects are not always
>>> > easily
>>> > > transferable between machines.
>>> > >
>>> > > On 8/21/2012 11:14 AM, Jeff Conrad wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> Hi Carol,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I think Justin's question was more oriented around what's the best
>>> > >> practice for checking in .project, .flexLibProperties, and
>>> > >> .actionScriptProperties files? Should they be included in source
>>> > >> control or ignored?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I took a peek at some of the files included and they contain some
>>> > >> important information that would make any potential contributor's
>>>job
>>> > >> easy. For instance, in
>>>projects/framework/.**actionScriptProperties,
>>> > >> there are a ton of additional compiler arguments that if I had to
>>>put
>>> > >> into every project like that, I'd go crazy:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> additionalCompilerArguments="-**keep-as3-metadata=Bindable,**
>>> > >> Managed,ChangeEvent,**NonCommittingChangeEvent,**Transient
>>> > >> -load-config+=framework-**config.xml
>>> > >> --include-file=defaults.css,..**/defaults.css
>>> > >> -include-file=defaults-3.0.0.**css,../defaults-3.0.0.css
>>> > >> -include-file=Assets.swf,../**assets/Assets.swf
>>> > >>
>>>-include-file=assets/**CalendarIcon.png,../assets/**CalendarIcon.png
>>> > >> -namespace=library://ns.adobe.**com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml<
>>> > http://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml>
>>> > >> -namespace+=http://www.adobe.**com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml<
>>> > http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml>
>>> > >> -resource-bundle-list=bundles.**properties -library-path=
>>>-locale="
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I'm in favor of either keeping this information in source control.
>>> I
>>> > >> don't want to have to remember all of that to make sure I'm
>>>building
>>> > >> the SDK correctly.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I suppose the other question that has to be asked, though, is
>>>whether
>>> > >> or not Flash Builder would be making different SWCs than the ant
>>> > >> scripts or where all of that information is included. It looks
>>>like
>>> > >> the ant scripts set the same arguments directly in the build.xml
>>>file.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> When someone gets time, maybe we can move all those arguments to
>>> > >> framework-config.xml file and have both the
>>>.actionScriptProperties
>>> > >> and build.xml file reference those so it's more DRY? I'll do it
>>> > >> sometime this week, but someone is more than welcome to beat me to
>>>it.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Does anyone know if there's a quirk in the compiler that causes
>>> > >> information set in a flex-config.xml file to be ignored by either
>>>the
>>> > >> Ant or Flash Builder? If it's a bug in the compiler, I'll just
>>>leave
>>> > >> well enough alone until after Falcon.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Jeff
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Carol Frampton
>>><cf...@adobe.com>
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> It loos like lots of newlines got introduced but no code changes
>>> other
>>> > >>> than the headers. I hink I'll rollback the commit and do it
>>>again.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Thanks for pointing that out. I usually diff my changes before
>>> > >>> committing
>>> > >>> them but I obviously didn't this time.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Carol
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> On 8/20/12 6 :12PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Hi,
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> Noticed the ".project", ".actionScriptProperties" and
>>> > >>>> ".flexLibProperties" mark marked as modified. Are they spposed
>>>to be
>>> > >>>> checked in?
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> Thanks,
>>> > >>>> Justin
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>
Re: Should .project, .flexLibProperties, and
.actionScriptProperties be checked in to source control? (Was: svn commit:
r1375263 [1/2] - in /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects)
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
Frankly I don't see what the big deal is. These files have been there
since day 1. They were set up carefully (not by me). They are
OS-independent and work no matter where the SDK is. If I hadn't screwed
up the headers and then screwed up fixing them this thread wouldn't exist.
There are hidden files (at least on OSX) so you don't even see them
unless you go looking and right now they aren't in the source distro.
It is already a pain in the neck to do development because we can't have
all the Adobe stuff in the tree. Now you are telling me to debug any, I
need to build the combined tree, and then create and edit 20+ files in 10+
directories before I can do anything. I am not a lover of FB but for now
it is what I know best. If you don't want to use them don't use them.
Carol
On 8/21/12 7 :05PM, "Michael Baird" <mb...@kairyt.com> wrote:
>Rather than a readme, how about <file>.sample? .project.sample,
>.actionScriptProperties.sample, etc...
>Then it becomes more apparent these are environment-specific samples and
>dont carry the maintenance weight of a thorough readme.
>
>Imagine also .project.mac.sample, .project.linux.sample, etc, for
>platform-specific settings, too.
>
>On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicholas@spoon.as
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > I agree with what Jeffery brought up from the previous thread. My
>>deal is
>> > if it is in the source control, and I need to make changes to my
>> > environment that are made in these files, there is a very real chance
>> those
>> > changes get committed back to the svn. Conversely, if somebody makes a
>> > change to the 'generic' file, do I have to overwrite my changes to my
>>IDE
>> > settings in order to get the rest of the changeset in place? It just
>> > starts getting really messy, particular for those IDE settings files
>>that
>> > would be project or computer specific.
>> >
>> >
>> I agree that it will get clumsy. But if I have project/source path/swc
>> library dependencies and compiler arguments, how will I let other know
>> about this? List everything in a README? Then there is a very good
>>chance
>> that the README will get out of sync with the project over the course of
>> time.
>>
>> IMHO, a little bit of clumsiness is fine because it makes it so much
>>easier
>> to share and set up projects. Once again, lowering the barrier to
>> contribute to Apache Flex.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > -Nick
>> > On Aug 21, 2012 2:28 PM, "Jeffry Houser" <je...@dot-com-it.com>
>>wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Last time this came up; the decision leaned towards:
>> > >
>> > > "You can do what you want in your whiteboard; but don't commit
>>project
>> > > files anywhere else."
>> > >
>> > > Sometimes it just makes things harder; and projects are not always
>> > easily
>> > > transferable between machines.
>> > >
>> > > On 8/21/2012 11:14 AM, Jeff Conrad wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi Carol,
>> > >>
>> > >> I think Justin's question was more oriented around what's the best
>> > >> practice for checking in .project, .flexLibProperties, and
>> > >> .actionScriptProperties files? Should they be included in source
>> > >> control or ignored?
>> > >>
>> > >> I took a peek at some of the files included and they contain some
>> > >> important information that would make any potential contributor's
>>job
>> > >> easy. For instance, in
>>projects/framework/.**actionScriptProperties,
>> > >> there are a ton of additional compiler arguments that if I had to
>>put
>> > >> into every project like that, I'd go crazy:
>> > >>
>> > >> additionalCompilerArguments="-**keep-as3-metadata=Bindable,**
>> > >> Managed,ChangeEvent,**NonCommittingChangeEvent,**Transient
>> > >> -load-config+=framework-**config.xml
>> > >> --include-file=defaults.css,..**/defaults.css
>> > >> -include-file=defaults-3.0.0.**css,../defaults-3.0.0.css
>> > >> -include-file=Assets.swf,../**assets/Assets.swf
>> > >>
>>-include-file=assets/**CalendarIcon.png,../assets/**CalendarIcon.png
>> > >> -namespace=library://ns.adobe.**com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml<
>> > http://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml>
>> > >> -namespace+=http://www.adobe.**com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml<
>> > http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml>
>> > >> -resource-bundle-list=bundles.**properties -library-path= -locale="
>> > >>
>> > >> I'm in favor of either keeping this information in source control.
>> I
>> > >> don't want to have to remember all of that to make sure I'm
>>building
>> > >> the SDK correctly.
>> > >>
>> > >> I suppose the other question that has to be asked, though, is
>>whether
>> > >> or not Flash Builder would be making different SWCs than the ant
>> > >> scripts or where all of that information is included. It looks
>>like
>> > >> the ant scripts set the same arguments directly in the build.xml
>>file.
>> > >>
>> > >> When someone gets time, maybe we can move all those arguments to
>> > >> framework-config.xml file and have both the .actionScriptProperties
>> > >> and build.xml file reference those so it's more DRY? I'll do it
>> > >> sometime this week, but someone is more than welcome to beat me to
>>it.
>> > >>
>> > >> Does anyone know if there's a quirk in the compiler that causes
>> > >> information set in a flex-config.xml file to be ignored by either
>>the
>> > >> Ant or Flash Builder? If it's a bug in the compiler, I'll just
>>leave
>> > >> well enough alone until after Falcon.
>> > >>
>> > >> Jeff
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Carol Frampton
>><cf...@adobe.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> It loos like lots of newlines got introduced but no code changes
>> other
>> > >>> than the headers. I hink I'll rollback the commit and do it
>>again.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks for pointing that out. I usually diff my changes before
>> > >>> committing
>> > >>> them but I obviously didn't this time.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Carol
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On 8/20/12 6 :12PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Hi,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Noticed the ".project", ".actionScriptProperties" and
>> > >>>> ".flexLibProperties" mark marked as modified. Are they spposed
>>to be
>> > >>>> checked in?
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Thanks,
>> > >>>> Justin
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >
>> >
>>
Re: Should .project, .flexLibProperties, and .actionScriptProperties
be checked in to source control? (Was: svn commit: r1375263 [1/2] - in /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects)
Posted by Michael Baird <mb...@kairyt.com>.
Rather than a readme, how about <file>.sample? .project.sample,
.actionScriptProperties.sample, etc...
Then it becomes more apparent these are environment-specific samples and
dont carry the maintenance weight of a thorough readme.
Imagine also .project.mac.sample, .project.linux.sample, etc, for
platform-specific settings, too.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Om <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicholas@spoon.as
> >wrote:
>
> > I agree with what Jeffery brought up from the previous thread. My deal is
> > if it is in the source control, and I need to make changes to my
> > environment that are made in these files, there is a very real chance
> those
> > changes get committed back to the svn. Conversely, if somebody makes a
> > change to the 'generic' file, do I have to overwrite my changes to my IDE
> > settings in order to get the rest of the changeset in place? It just
> > starts getting really messy, particular for those IDE settings files that
> > would be project or computer specific.
> >
> >
> I agree that it will get clumsy. But if I have project/source path/swc
> library dependencies and compiler arguments, how will I let other know
> about this? List everything in a README? Then there is a very good chance
> that the README will get out of sync with the project over the course of
> time.
>
> IMHO, a little bit of clumsiness is fine because it makes it so much easier
> to share and set up projects. Once again, lowering the barrier to
> contribute to Apache Flex.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > -Nick
> > On Aug 21, 2012 2:28 PM, "Jeffry Houser" <je...@dot-com-it.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Last time this came up; the decision leaned towards:
> > >
> > > "You can do what you want in your whiteboard; but don't commit project
> > > files anywhere else."
> > >
> > > Sometimes it just makes things harder; and projects are not always
> > easily
> > > transferable between machines.
> > >
> > > On 8/21/2012 11:14 AM, Jeff Conrad wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Carol,
> > >>
> > >> I think Justin's question was more oriented around what's the best
> > >> practice for checking in .project, .flexLibProperties, and
> > >> .actionScriptProperties files? Should they be included in source
> > >> control or ignored?
> > >>
> > >> I took a peek at some of the files included and they contain some
> > >> important information that would make any potential contributor's job
> > >> easy. For instance, in projects/framework/.**actionScriptProperties,
> > >> there are a ton of additional compiler arguments that if I had to put
> > >> into every project like that, I'd go crazy:
> > >>
> > >> additionalCompilerArguments="-**keep-as3-metadata=Bindable,**
> > >> Managed,ChangeEvent,**NonCommittingChangeEvent,**Transient
> > >> -load-config+=framework-**config.xml
> > >> --include-file=defaults.css,..**/defaults.css
> > >> -include-file=defaults-3.0.0.**css,../defaults-3.0.0.css
> > >> -include-file=Assets.swf,../**assets/Assets.swf
> > >> -include-file=assets/**CalendarIcon.png,../assets/**CalendarIcon.png
> > >> -namespace=library://ns.adobe.**com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml<
> > http://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml>
> > >> -namespace+=http://www.adobe.**com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml<
> > http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml>
> > >> -resource-bundle-list=bundles.**properties -library-path= -locale="
> > >>
> > >> I'm in favor of either keeping this information in source control. I
> > >> don't want to have to remember all of that to make sure I'm building
> > >> the SDK correctly.
> > >>
> > >> I suppose the other question that has to be asked, though, is whether
> > >> or not Flash Builder would be making different SWCs than the ant
> > >> scripts or where all of that information is included. It looks like
> > >> the ant scripts set the same arguments directly in the build.xml file.
> > >>
> > >> When someone gets time, maybe we can move all those arguments to
> > >> framework-config.xml file and have both the .actionScriptProperties
> > >> and build.xml file reference those so it's more DRY? I'll do it
> > >> sometime this week, but someone is more than welcome to beat me to it.
> > >>
> > >> Does anyone know if there's a quirk in the compiler that causes
> > >> information set in a flex-config.xml file to be ignored by either the
> > >> Ant or Flash Builder? If it's a bug in the compiler, I'll just leave
> > >> well enough alone until after Falcon.
> > >>
> > >> Jeff
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> It loos like lots of newlines got introduced but no code changes
> other
> > >>> than the headers. I hink I'll rollback the commit and do it again.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for pointing that out. I usually diff my changes before
> > >>> committing
> > >>> them but I obviously didn't this time.
> > >>>
> > >>> Carol
> > >>>
> > >>> On 8/20/12 6 :12PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Noticed the ".project", ".actionScriptProperties" and
> > >>>> ".flexLibProperties" mark marked as modified. Are they spposed to be
> > >>>> checked in?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Justin
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Should .project, .flexLibProperties, and .actionScriptProperties
be checked in to source control? (Was: svn commit: r1375263 [1/2] - in /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects)
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>wrote:
> I agree with what Jeffery brought up from the previous thread. My deal is
> if it is in the source control, and I need to make changes to my
> environment that are made in these files, there is a very real chance those
> changes get committed back to the svn. Conversely, if somebody makes a
> change to the 'generic' file, do I have to overwrite my changes to my IDE
> settings in order to get the rest of the changeset in place? It just
> starts getting really messy, particular for those IDE settings files that
> would be project or computer specific.
>
>
I agree that it will get clumsy. But if I have project/source path/swc
library dependencies and compiler arguments, how will I let other know
about this? List everything in a README? Then there is a very good chance
that the README will get out of sync with the project over the course of
time.
IMHO, a little bit of clumsiness is fine because it makes it so much easier
to share and set up projects. Once again, lowering the barrier to
contribute to Apache Flex.
Thanks,
Om
>
> -Nick
> On Aug 21, 2012 2:28 PM, "Jeffry Houser" <je...@dot-com-it.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Last time this came up; the decision leaned towards:
> >
> > "You can do what you want in your whiteboard; but don't commit project
> > files anywhere else."
> >
> > Sometimes it just makes things harder; and projects are not always
> easily
> > transferable between machines.
> >
> > On 8/21/2012 11:14 AM, Jeff Conrad wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Carol,
> >>
> >> I think Justin's question was more oriented around what's the best
> >> practice for checking in .project, .flexLibProperties, and
> >> .actionScriptProperties files? Should they be included in source
> >> control or ignored?
> >>
> >> I took a peek at some of the files included and they contain some
> >> important information that would make any potential contributor's job
> >> easy. For instance, in projects/framework/.**actionScriptProperties,
> >> there are a ton of additional compiler arguments that if I had to put
> >> into every project like that, I'd go crazy:
> >>
> >> additionalCompilerArguments="-**keep-as3-metadata=Bindable,**
> >> Managed,ChangeEvent,**NonCommittingChangeEvent,**Transient
> >> -load-config+=framework-**config.xml
> >> --include-file=defaults.css,..**/defaults.css
> >> -include-file=defaults-3.0.0.**css,../defaults-3.0.0.css
> >> -include-file=Assets.swf,../**assets/Assets.swf
> >> -include-file=assets/**CalendarIcon.png,../assets/**CalendarIcon.png
> >> -namespace=library://ns.adobe.**com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml<
> http://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml>
> >> -namespace+=http://www.adobe.**com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml<
> http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml>
> >> -resource-bundle-list=bundles.**properties -library-path= -locale="
> >>
> >> I'm in favor of either keeping this information in source control. I
> >> don't want to have to remember all of that to make sure I'm building
> >> the SDK correctly.
> >>
> >> I suppose the other question that has to be asked, though, is whether
> >> or not Flash Builder would be making different SWCs than the ant
> >> scripts or where all of that information is included. It looks like
> >> the ant scripts set the same arguments directly in the build.xml file.
> >>
> >> When someone gets time, maybe we can move all those arguments to
> >> framework-config.xml file and have both the .actionScriptProperties
> >> and build.xml file reference those so it's more DRY? I'll do it
> >> sometime this week, but someone is more than welcome to beat me to it.
> >>
> >> Does anyone know if there's a quirk in the compiler that causes
> >> information set in a flex-config.xml file to be ignored by either the
> >> Ant or Flash Builder? If it's a bug in the compiler, I'll just leave
> >> well enough alone until after Falcon.
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It loos like lots of newlines got introduced but no code changes other
> >>> than the headers. I hink I'll rollback the commit and do it again.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for pointing that out. I usually diff my changes before
> >>> committing
> >>> them but I obviously didn't this time.
> >>>
> >>> Carol
> >>>
> >>> On 8/20/12 6 :12PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Noticed the ".project", ".actionScriptProperties" and
> >>>> ".flexLibProperties" mark marked as modified. Are they spposed to be
> >>>> checked in?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Justin
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
>
Re: Should .project, .flexLibProperties, and .actionScriptProperties
be checked in to source control? (Was: svn commit: r1375263 [1/2] - in /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects)
Posted by Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>.
I agree with what Jeffery brought up from the previous thread. My deal is
if it is in the source control, and I need to make changes to my
environment that are made in these files, there is a very real chance those
changes get committed back to the svn. Conversely, if somebody makes a
change to the 'generic' file, do I have to overwrite my changes to my IDE
settings in order to get the rest of the changeset in place? It just
starts getting really messy, particular for those IDE settings files that
would be project or computer specific.
-Nick
On Aug 21, 2012 2:28 PM, "Jeffry Houser" <je...@dot-com-it.com> wrote:
>
> Last time this came up; the decision leaned towards:
>
> "You can do what you want in your whiteboard; but don't commit project
> files anywhere else."
>
> Sometimes it just makes things harder; and projects are not always easily
> transferable between machines.
>
> On 8/21/2012 11:14 AM, Jeff Conrad wrote:
>
>> Hi Carol,
>>
>> I think Justin's question was more oriented around what's the best
>> practice for checking in .project, .flexLibProperties, and
>> .actionScriptProperties files? Should they be included in source
>> control or ignored?
>>
>> I took a peek at some of the files included and they contain some
>> important information that would make any potential contributor's job
>> easy. For instance, in projects/framework/.**actionScriptProperties,
>> there are a ton of additional compiler arguments that if I had to put
>> into every project like that, I'd go crazy:
>>
>> additionalCompilerArguments="-**keep-as3-metadata=Bindable,**
>> Managed,ChangeEvent,**NonCommittingChangeEvent,**Transient
>> -load-config+=framework-**config.xml
>> --include-file=defaults.css,..**/defaults.css
>> -include-file=defaults-3.0.0.**css,../defaults-3.0.0.css
>> -include-file=Assets.swf,../**assets/Assets.swf
>> -include-file=assets/**CalendarIcon.png,../assets/**CalendarIcon.png
>> -namespace=library://ns.adobe.**com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml<http://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml>
>> -namespace+=http://www.adobe.**com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml<http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml>
>> -resource-bundle-list=bundles.**properties -library-path= -locale="
>>
>> I'm in favor of either keeping this information in source control. I
>> don't want to have to remember all of that to make sure I'm building
>> the SDK correctly.
>>
>> I suppose the other question that has to be asked, though, is whether
>> or not Flash Builder would be making different SWCs than the ant
>> scripts or where all of that information is included. It looks like
>> the ant scripts set the same arguments directly in the build.xml file.
>>
>> When someone gets time, maybe we can move all those arguments to
>> framework-config.xml file and have both the .actionScriptProperties
>> and build.xml file reference those so it's more DRY? I'll do it
>> sometime this week, but someone is more than welcome to beat me to it.
>>
>> Does anyone know if there's a quirk in the compiler that causes
>> information set in a flex-config.xml file to be ignored by either the
>> Ant or Flash Builder? If it's a bug in the compiler, I'll just leave
>> well enough alone until after Falcon.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It loos like lots of newlines got introduced but no code changes other
>>> than the headers. I hink I'll rollback the commit and do it again.
>>>
>>> Thanks for pointing that out. I usually diff my changes before
>>> committing
>>> them but I obviously didn't this time.
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>> On 8/20/12 6 :12PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Noticed the ".project", ".actionScriptProperties" and
>>>> ".flexLibProperties" mark marked as modified. Are they spposed to be
>>>> checked in?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Justin
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Should .project, .flexLibProperties, and .actionScriptProperties
be checked in to source control? (Was: svn commit: r1375263 [1/2] - in /incubator/flex/sdk/branches/develop/frameworks/projects)
Posted by Jeffry Houser <je...@dot-com-it.com>.
Last time this came up; the decision leaned towards:
"You can do what you want in your whiteboard; but don't commit project
files anywhere else."
Sometimes it just makes things harder; and projects are not always
easily transferable between machines.
On 8/21/2012 11:14 AM, Jeff Conrad wrote:
> Hi Carol,
>
> I think Justin's question was more oriented around what's the best
> practice for checking in .project, .flexLibProperties, and
> .actionScriptProperties files? Should they be included in source
> control or ignored?
>
> I took a peek at some of the files included and they contain some
> important information that would make any potential contributor's job
> easy. For instance, in projects/framework/.actionScriptProperties,
> there are a ton of additional compiler arguments that if I had to put
> into every project like that, I'd go crazy:
>
> additionalCompilerArguments="-keep-as3-metadata=Bindable,Managed,ChangeEvent,NonCommittingChangeEvent,Transient
> -load-config+=framework-config.xml
> --include-file=defaults.css,../defaults.css
> -include-file=defaults-3.0.0.css,../defaults-3.0.0.css
> -include-file=Assets.swf,../assets/Assets.swf
> -include-file=assets/CalendarIcon.png,../assets/CalendarIcon.png
> -namespace=library://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx,../manifest.xml
> -namespace+=http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml,../manifest.xml
> -resource-bundle-list=bundles.properties -library-path= -locale="
>
> I'm in favor of either keeping this information in source control. I
> don't want to have to remember all of that to make sure I'm building
> the SDK correctly.
>
> I suppose the other question that has to be asked, though, is whether
> or not Flash Builder would be making different SWCs than the ant
> scripts or where all of that information is included. It looks like
> the ant scripts set the same arguments directly in the build.xml file.
>
> When someone gets time, maybe we can move all those arguments to
> framework-config.xml file and have both the .actionScriptProperties
> and build.xml file reference those so it's more DRY? I'll do it
> sometime this week, but someone is more than welcome to beat me to it.
>
> Does anyone know if there's a quirk in the compiler that causes
> information set in a flex-config.xml file to be ignored by either the
> Ant or Flash Builder? If it's a bug in the compiler, I'll just leave
> well enough alone until after Falcon.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> It loos like lots of newlines got introduced but no code changes other
>> than the headers. I hink I'll rollback the commit and do it again.
>>
>> Thanks for pointing that out. I usually diff my changes before committing
>> them but I obviously didn't this time.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>> On 8/20/12 6 :12PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Noticed the ".project", ".actionScriptProperties" and
>>> ".flexLibProperties" mark marked as modified. Are they spposed to be
>>> checked in?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Justin