buildr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anders Janmyr <>
Subject Re: Idea 7x issues
Date Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:31:54 GMT
Hi Rhett,

I'm interested in the your IDEA changes.
I have made a few changes myself to the idea task not to the idea7
task, mostly relating to JDK version.

Could you put it on github, so I can pull from you?


On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Rhett Sutphin
<> wrote:
> Hi,
> IDEA project file creation is indeed a slippery thing.  I use heavily
> modified version of idea7x myself (on IDEA 8) and have avoided upgrading to
> IDEA 9 partially because I don't want to deal with updating that task to
> work with 9 (if any are needed -- I haven't actually tried).
> That said, I have been meaning to re-package my custom task as a gem.  It
> seems to me that this is a better way to deal with IDEA support since none
> of the committers (AFAIK) use it.  I agree that a base abstraction with
> output that would work with both 8 and 9 (at least) would be nice.  Here are
> the features I have in my custom task (which is called iidea) over idea7x:
> 1) Detects VCS automatically (subversion and git only) with manual override
> 2) Automatically excludes all target and report directories from indexing
> 3) Supports manual configuration of source and test paths for each module
> 4) Supports low-level configuration of particular IML sections (by building
> XML directly in the buildr project definition)
> 5) Provides a "clean" task
> 6) Includes all buildr subprojects (not just ones that are packaged) but
> allows particular subprojects to be skipped using a project attribute
> All of those except for (4) should be possible using a base abstraction.
>  I'll see what I can come up with, though it will be a couple of weeks
> before I can really look at it.
> FWIW, IDEA 8 still supports the file-based approach.  (It's what I'm using
> with 8.1.4.)  I don't believe in committing IDE project files (or anything
> else which is generatable) to VCS, so it works fine for me and my team.  All
> the patches Alex brought up are minor changes to the existing idea7x code,
> so they use the file-based approach.
> Alex, BUILDR-367 and BUILDR-376 are both genuine issues which I've fixed in
> my task.  BUILDR-377 uses a feature of IDEA I'm not familiar with but which
> sounds useful.  I haven't reviewed any of the patches, though.
> Rhett
> On Feb 24, 2010, at 8:46 AM, Shane Witbeck wrote:
>> A few things to consider:
>>  1. I think we need to define which versions of IDEA these patches should
>>  work with. The last idea7x patch which I wrote was specifically for IDEA
>> 7x.
>>  It seems each subsequent version of IDEA (8x and 9x) has had changes to
>> the
>>  way they handle project and module files.
>>  2. Version 8x of IDEA introduced a new way of defining project and module
>>  files. It's called the "directory-based" approach. I believe the new
>>  approach was to make it easier to share project files among team members
>> by
>>  checking into a source repository. The older project files apparently
>> were
>>  hard to keep in sync because of merge conflicts, etc. Do these patches
>>  address the traditional project files or the new directory-based
>> approach?
>>  3. Having gone through the process of trying to keep changes in Buildr
>>  and IDEA project files in synch along with changing formats with each new
>>  IDEA version, I finally gave up. I propose a more clearly defined
>> approach
>>  which addresses differences between IDEA project file version formats.
>>  Perhaps a departure from idea vs idea7x tasks and have one idea task with
>> a
>>  param indicating which version to generate the project files for?
>> That all being said, I'm willing to help in this effort.
>> -Shane
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Alex Boisvert
>> <>wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Alex Boisvert <
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Any committer wants to step in and review these patches?
>>>> I don't use IDEA and I'm not familiar with their project descriptions.
>>> While we're at it there's also this one to be reviewed,
>>> In lieu of specs (which are sadly missing for IDEA), I could be consoled
>>> if
>>> fellow IDEA contributors cross-reviewed their patches.  i.e., Alexis
>>> reviewing BUILDR-376/377 and Peter reviewing BUILDR-369, or anybody
>>> else...
>>> Just indicate so on the issue itself to help expedite the process.
>>> thanks!
>>> alex


View raw message