ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject RE: Proposed Revolution: AntEater (a proposal for Ant Core 2.0)
Date Tue, 14 Nov 2000 02:25:06 GMT
At 01:01  14/11/00 +1100, you wrote:
>Duncan,
>
>Whilst I am happy to have an ant revolution, I wonder whether we need it. If
>we all agree on a direction with regard to ant 2.0's objectives, we can move
>forward without a revolution. I'm not saying that we wouldn't want some
>revolutionary code and architecture changes and perhaps some unusual
>instability in ant.
>
>If I look at the revolution in Tomcat, I can see that it is still a source
>of much tension in the tomcat-dev list. A revolution provides an opportunity
>to split the community. We should only have that if it is really necessary.
>If we have a revolution and everyone moves over to work on it, then why have
>a revolution :-) ? If we have disagreement then yes, a revolution may be
>required.  Perhaps we should wait to see whether these is such disagreement.
>>From the list you posted, I feel there will be broad agreement.
>
>What do you think?

I think that the reasons for revolution would mainly be because it will be
breaking backwards compatability which is a PITA but necessary IMHO. As the
the architecture will change significantly then it is unreasonable to
expect end users to use ant with it constatly changing.

Cheers,

Pete

*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power."          |
|       -Abraham Lincoln                               |
*------------------------------------------------------*

Mime
View raw message