[Ironruby-core] Littl' question about the build process
jomes at microsoft.com
Tue Jan 15 16:08:39 EST 2008
> I need some clarifications for my readers: I believe we have three ways
> of compiling IronRuby today:
> - through the rake compile task (is it the preferred way ?)
> - through IronRuby.sln (for 2005)
> - through Ruby.sln (for 2008 ?)
> Are both the .sln files maintained ? Is my guess correct about
> 2005/2008 ?
> In the long run, are all these intented to be maintained ?
As John said, IronRuby.sln is the one that is correctly transformed to SVN folder layout. Ruby.sln is against our TFS folder layer. Maybe we could rename them to make it more obvious which is which.
Also, I'm wondering what VS version we should target with IronRuby.sln. Are enough people using 2008 to justify upgrading it? Or should we have one for 2005 and one for 2008? Or keep it 2005 for now?
More information about the Ironruby-core