> On 02.09.2009 16:57 CE(S)T, David Weintraub wrote:
> > That's a shame really because you would find CruiseControl.NET to be
> > extemely useful in your development.
> Hm, from those two entry pages, CCNet doesn't look too useful to our
> project. We don't need a build server. And we do commit every few hours
> already. And we can talk to each other if anyone wants to do big
> > You should not be "pushing the build button" for official builds. You
> > should not be doing any manual steps in order to produce your builds.
> > That's not only error prone, but makes the build process totally
> > dependent upon you. Official builds should take place on a server
> > specifically designed for that purpose and should be 100% automated.
> Everyone who works on the project (1 to 3 people) can build the
> application and publish the binary. There's no need for a highly
> sophisticated build server environment. Testing was not paid by the
> client so we don't do it a lot other then what a developer usually
> And the SVN revision has the only purpose that we could easily analyse
> any errors reported by the client without asking a lot about their
> software version. The complete version is included in the error report
> file so we could start right away, if the code revision is relevant to
> an error.
Well, you don't need a build server, nor do you need nant. What I would recommend is that you get subWCRev program and use MSBuild to run it as part of a pre-build event. Have your pre-build event do an svn update then use subWCRev to put the revision number into your assembly info file. Check subWCRev into your project folder too. You should also have it embed whether there were un-comited changes in the WC when it was built.
That's really the minimum you need. Then any dev that builds will automatically get the rev number embedded into the binaries automatically.
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-09-02 22:18:08 CEST