jmchamberlain / workspacemechanic

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/workspacemechanic
0 stars 0 forks source link

Add PROJECT_LOC/.eclipse/mechanic to the list of default task sources #52

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
It is highly desired to have "PROJECT_LOC/.eclipse/mechanic" added as a path to 
search for task sources. It is useful when creating another clone of the 
project to make WM automatically warn about misaligned settings.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by anat...@rainforce.org on 24 Mar 2011 at 12:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
I would like to see the ability to configure the task paths using standard 
eclipse variables, such as $WORKSPACE_LOC/$PROJECT_LOC such that we can add 
standard search paths to our Eclipse builds and then check in WM configurations 
along with code. 

However, I don't think it should go into .eclipse within a project, it is a 
more workspace oriented thing. We have hundreds of plugin projects open at a 
time - having eclipse scan each project for a .eclipse/mechanic entry is 
undesirable, especially when WM's scope is pretty much Workspace oriented.

Original comment by mai...@jamesfry.com on 29 May 2012 at 8:33

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
Interesting. I wouldn't necessarily agree with project location, since there 
are many projects in a workspace. (which James just said.) But variables might 
be good.

Original comment by konigsb...@gmail.com on 23 Jun 2012 at 1:52

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
The problem is that it comes down to the internally stored file format for 
resource task providers. I'd be happy to accept a patch, but it would need to 
preserve the existing format. The UI needs a tweak as well. Contributions 
welcome!

Original comment by konigsb...@gmail.com on 23 Jun 2012 at 2:04

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago

Original comment by konigsb...@gmail.com on 2 Jul 2012 at 9:21

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago
So, do you think that the patch in bug 92 will solve this problem? Looks like 
it should, but let me know sooner rather than later.

Original comment by konigsb...@gmail.com on 9 Jul 2012 at 3:05