Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2005, at 20:41, Young, Jason (GE Infrastructure) wrote:
> ...
>
>> 1. Have another file called "Release.config" that gets renamed to
>> "Web.config" during the build process. Only release.config would be
>> under source control. Users would have a local web.config that they
>> can
>> edit as they please. The only problem is that users would have to copy
>> release.config to get their local system running.
>
>
> [snip]
>
> I believe that's generally how people solve that problem. I think
> it's pretty easy...
Agreed. Just one more suggestion: Instead of using names like
Release.config and Web.config, which can be confusing as to which one is
which, use names such as Web.config.in and Web.config. This is a common
convention, so that Web.config.in is the original that is checked in,
while Web.config is the one that is generated from Web.config.in or
otherwise created and edited. In addition to be clearer as to which one
is which, this convention generalizes. Otherwise, the next time you
come up with a similar situation, you'll be forced to invent yet another
name to distinguish them.
Gary
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 15 23:44:36 2005