ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kev Jackson <>
Subject Re: Additional SourceSafe (VSS) Tasks - Any Comments?
Date Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:11:39 GMT
Steve Loughran wrote:

> Kev Jackson wrote:
>> Kevin Jackson wrote:
>>>> Standard Ant contains a number of VSS tasks and I'm writing a couple
>>>> more for my own use (tasks relating to file / project properties, such
>>>> as shared versions). My questions are: should I submit these tasks for
>>>> possible inclusion in the standard Ant distribution? And if so, do you
>>>> have any advice on  the best way to do that? I've read the "Task 
>>>> Design
>>>> Guidelines", by the way.
>>> Anybody have a problem with splitting VSS off into an antlib so that
>>> people with VSS can easily add tasks etc?  I recall that there are
>>> also a couple of bugs listed (enhancements and patches) for VSS, but
>>> without anyone willing to test them, they aren't going to be worked
>>> on.  I see an antlib being useful here, but would like to know what
>>> other people think.
>> I've knocked together an antlib for vss against 1.7 trunk.
>> I still need to write the testcases (JUnit + xml files), but is there 
>> any interest in this approach so that the VSS users can add commands 
>> / support VSS outside of the dev cycle for Ant proper?
>> We do have quite a few outstanding issues for VSS and very few (if 
>> any) of the committer team have access on a regular basis to a VSS 
>> install
> I used to, but then discovered how drastically it can get corrupted, 
> and stopped. I dont even have a or vss client installed on a 
> laptop or vmware image right now.
>> Having spent the past hour or so getting VSS to acknowledge Ant 
>> interacting with it (or indeed even the MS supplied command line 
>> tools), I'm in favour of pushing all of this code off into an ant lib 
>> which the users can manage by themselves!
> +1
Unfortunately this would count as a code change and would have to go 
through a formal vote, I'd still like some more feedback before 
proposing a vote which may be a waste of time.

>> FYI, I'd be willing to put in the initial effort to deliver an antlib 
>> if the rest of you thought it was worthwhile - indeed it's mostly 
>> there already, and I'd be willing to incorporate additional code into 
>> this antlib - *for the next two weeks while I have access to VSS*
> Tests are interesting. What could be done is a precreated vss database 
> that could be used as a starting place, but to run the tests you'd 
> still need a VSS client, which is actually hideously overpriced (can 
> you say hundreds of dollars?).  Maybe the new freebie express 
> tools bundle a free vss client though...

It's actually one of those things where an open source reverse 
engineered client would actually be useful, as you mention, the price 
that you must pay to use VSS is outrageous.  The problem I guess is that 
anyone with the skills to reverese engineer the VSS client, certainly 
doesn't have the inclination to bother!

> Now, if we have tests for VSS then maybe I could build up a vmware 
> image which could be used to intermittently host test runs. I was 
> thinking of building up windows 2003 and windows vista images, though 
> for the latter I'm holding off till a slightly better build comes out 
> than last month's; it takes so long to install Vista I'm not that 
> motivated to waste the time just yet.

Yes thats another problem, the tests are bound to a configuration of VSS 
+DB that will not be available to gump, so I could build a whole set of 
tests for all the functionality we currently provide, then they would be 
next to useless for someone else without first configuring a vss db in 
the exact same manner.  At least with svn we actually have an svn repo 
to test against :)


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message