17 Oct
2008
17 Oct
'08
11:40 a.m.
On Oct 17, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
Thomas Mortagne wrote:
I don't agree. +1 for b), -1 for having both.
Complexity is bad especially when it's not needed.
Thanks
-Vincent
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:42 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu
<sergiu(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
+0 as well, it
does not cost much dan.miron(a)xwiki.com wrote:
+0 for configurable if it's "faill=true" by default. Hi guys, regarding the bug from
http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XPXARPLUGIN, I would like to
know your
oppinion regarding this issue:
If there is already a package.xml document, but it's invalid, the
plugin
should:
a) Display a warning, ignore the existing package.xml and
generate a new one.
b) Throw an error, thus causing the build to fail
Personally, I'm for a), since it's not a critical issue.
Thomas M. says that if there is a package.xml it's because
someone wants
that package.xml to be taken into account, so if for b)
Since there are two
opinions, why not make a (boolean) setting? The
default should be to fail, but give the user the choice to force
the build.
Personally, I think that B is the right choice. An invalid xml
file is a
problem in the sources, and the developer should be aware of it. A
mere
warning could be lost in a long log, or in case of automated
builds it
will rarely be looked at.