This project is read-only.

Last edited Oct 6, 2012 at 5:31 PM by ploufs, version 4


schalkvanwyk Jan 8, 2013 at 1:37 PM 
Great tool, but it's easy to miss Chirpy's settings found in the VS options dialogue and there is a small catch to remember if you want to use the T4 template feature:
"One of the new T4MVC related features put into the latest release is 'Smart Run T4MVC'. If you turn on this option in the chirpy settings, it will only run the T4MVC template when it should."

leavelllusion Oct 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM 
I get 500 - Internal server error on all links from this page

amitkumarpatel Oct 7, 2012 at 7:32 AM 
I have written article on it how to use it.,%20JS,%20DotLess%20and%20T4%20files/54#.UHEggk3MjHQ


isochronous Sep 19, 2012 at 7:55 PM 
Guess what? You guys are right, open source projects certainly don't require documentation. But you know what else? Everyone I know who was once using Chirpy is now moving to some other solution (myself included) and the lack of documentation is a primary reason. There are THOUSANDS of open source projects that include at least rudimentary documentation, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect at least a "getting started" guide, or a list of all the options available (thanks, btw, flamewave4, for providing what the author couldn't be bothered to generate).

flamewave4 Jul 23, 2012 at 7:03 PM 
For those wanting documentation on the config file, I threw something together. See

richyk Feb 22, 2012 at 12:14 PM 
I agree with Tim as well. I'm glad to be able to use this in the first place. I understand the comments though, it's not too easy too implement and especially when you use it in a live environment and something goes wrong, you'd like some quick help or a manual, but that is just too bad :-) Take it or leave it

gtbremer Feb 10, 2012 at 3:42 AM 
After carefully consideration of the insightful comments from raylinder and timheckel, I've changed my mind. Chirpy has the kindest, warmest, most wonderful documentation I've ever seen. Furthermore, there is no reason whatsoever to offer any constructive criticism of any aspect of an OSS project.

raylinder Feb 6, 2012 at 3:31 PM 
I agree with Tim. If you want documentation, go find a similar product and PAY for it OR add your own documentation. This stuff is FREE, as included in what "free" offers. If there is ANY documentation, be thankful it exists. Documentation is never required, regardless.

timheckel Feb 3, 2012 at 1:24 AM 
jeez. lay off this guy. so the documentation is thin? don't use the tool. it's free, remember? If you want to make it better, dig through the code and start documenting it...then share. but. please. don't. bitch. it's so tiresome.

ArmchairBronco Nov 2, 2011 at 12:43 AM 
I'm also going to weigh in with some complaints about the lack of up-to-date documentation. I've been using Chirpy since the early days with version 1.0. As noted, back then the blog posts from the original author were a pretty good road map (although the constant stream of humor & pithy comments does become tiresome). Since Chirpy 2.0 has been released and folks in the community have been adding to the tool, there has been essentially zero effort to aggregate a summary of the changes in one place and provide step-by-step instructions and code samples for users of the tool. It seems as if people are just making random changes to solve a specific need, and then checking the code in. And the checkins are being done very casually, with debug statements left behind that need to be fixed 5 minutes later. This clearly indicates very little unit testing is going on. It's not surprising that documentation is basically ignored in such an environment.

I've reviewed the checkin comments and have found them to be (for the most part) totally lacking in any meaningful explanation of what happened. Occasionally, someone will try to paint a before and after picture, but frequently the comments are so poorly written (littered with spelling and grammatical mistakes) that they only confuse things. In particular, work related to the *.config mashup files is very poorly documented, if at all.

This is one of the pitfalls of Open Source projects. It's great when everyone has access to the sources and can make changes, but binary-level changes are only half of the equation. If you don't document what you've done so others can use (and/or test) your changes, then what's the point?

gtbremer Oct 4, 2011 at 7:51 PM 
+1 for "Is there any 'real' documentation?" While the blog posts are entertaining at first, the humor quickly become annoying when you're trying to figure out how something actually works.

broth628 Sep 8, 2011 at 4:40 PM 
Is there any "real" documentation? I'm specifically looking for examples of using the "mashing" functionality but what's in the above links appears to be VERY out of date (especially when compared to the source code). We have a main scripts folder containing most of our js files, but we also have js files throughout the site as well and would like to mash them all together into a single file (actually two files: one minimized and another not minimized). The problem I seem to be having is that it's trying to mash the mash file (e.g. recursively mashing the file into itself to the point of having to kill my VStudio process).