buildr-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel Spiewak" <djspie...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Interactive Shell Support
Date Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:14:40 GMT
Implemented in GitHub fork, interactive-shell branch.

Incidentally, I noticed that a lot of Buildr tasks have documentation right
in the code.  Is this the correct way of doing things?  More specifically,
Assaf wants the framework documented, so where should that go?

Daniel

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Assaf's parametrized idea seems like the "proper" way to do this, but I
> > don't like the syntax.  At least to my eye, shell:jirb is *much* nicer
> and
> > more consistent with the "Buildr philosphy" than shell[jirb].  Besides,
> the
> > former is marginally easier to type.
>
>
> I feel the same way.   I'm curious to see if many Rake-based projects will
> adopt this new convention.
>
>
> > We could use your multiple-tasks idea without too much hardship in the
> > implementation.  I've got all the providers in a Hash, so a simple .each
> {
> > |lang, prov| define_task ... } should be sufficient.  I'm fine with doing
> > it
> > this way as long as y'all are ok with it.  :-)
>
>
> One precedent I can think of is the form "buildr test:SomeTest", which I
> like so I'm supportive of following our existing convention.
>
> alex
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message