Remove binaries in excess from source control

[Simone Busoli]

I think a lot of stuff should be removed from svn. I'm talking about the external libraries. Every project should reference them from the central bin (I'd call it lib, since it's the convention) directory, instead of spreading them into the solution items.

Another thing I think should be removed are the binaries of SharpArch from the Northwind example. Why not just reference the needed SharpArch projects?

[Billy]

Agreed. It would be good to get rid of some of redundancy from SVN.
I've added this as issue 32 at http://code.google.com/p/sharp-architecture/issues/detail?id=32

Billy

On Dec 27 2008, 2:49 pm, "Simone Busoli" <simone.bus...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think a lot of stuff should be removed from svn. I'm talking about the
> external libraries. Every project should reference them from the central bin
> (I'd call it lib, since it's the convention) directory, instead of spreading

> them into the solution items.Another thing I think should be removed are the

[Simone Busoli]

I can do that, but I'm not sure if it impacts on the project templates and/or scaffolding, I didn't look at them yet.

[Billy]

Good point...I'll take care of this one.

Billy

On Jan 7, 3:30 pm, "Simone Busoli" <simone.bus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can do that, but I'm not sure if it impacts on the project templates
> and/or scaffolding, I didn't look at them yet.
>

[Michael Tsibelman]

I think what one benefit exists in keeping Northwind references to architecture libs as binary instead of making them project references.

This way a person who studies the example have a clear separation where custom code ends and library begins.

 

[Simone Busoli]

Definitely, but to me this is not a sufficient reason to keep them. 

[Kyle Baley]

I agree. If you can't determine which code is Northwind and which is S#arp from the project names alone, well, you can't save everybody.

[Billy]

(I'm expecting a Jesus related response to that in about 10 seconds...
9...8...7...)

On Jan 8, 6:04 am, "Kyle Baley" <k...@baley.org> wrote:
> I agree. If you can't determine which code is Northwind and which is S#arp
> from the project names alone, well, you can't save everybody.
>

> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Simone Busoli <simone.bus...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Definitely, but to me this is not a sufficient reason to keep them.
>

> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Michael Tsibelman <tsibel...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>  I think what one benefit exists in keeping Northwind references
> >> to architecture libs as binary instead of making them project references.
>
> >> This way a person who studies the example have a clear separation where
> >> custom code ends and library begins.
>

[Simone Busoli]

I've removed the Solution Items folder from SharpArch solution and committed it to my branch. Check it out, and if everything's fine I'll merge it into the trunk. That shouldn't break anything I think.

[Billy]

That looks good Simone, please proceed with merging onto the trunk.

To reconfirm for everyone, this does not introduce any new and
breaking changes; simply a reduction of duplicated assemblies on the
trunk.

Billy

On Jan 8, 6:45 am, "Simone Busoli" <simone.bus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've removed the Solution Items folder from SharpArch solution and committed
> it to my branch. Check it out, and if everything's fine I'll merge it into
> the trunk. That shouldn't break anything I think.
>

[Simone Busoli]

Committed.