ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: Patch Audit
Date Mon, 06 Aug 2001 03:26:54 GMT
On Mon,  6 Aug 2001 02:07, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> I have gone through all the patches I could find and determined which ones
> have not been applied or explicitly rejected. The results of this can be
> found here
> I don't guarantee that this list includes all outstanding patches, that
> none of these patches may indeed have been committed or that they have been
> specifically rejected by a committer. This list only covers patches
> submitted to the ant-dev list, not enhancements posted to BugZilla.
> I think there are a number of patches which should be included in 1.4. I'd
> like an indication from other committers of
> 1. Any patches which you believe should be included in 1.4
> 2. Patches which should be rejected
> 3. Patches which can wait till after 1.4 (I'll assume this to include any
> not covered in 1 and 2.
> Patch authors may also indicate if the patch is no longer viable, needs to
> be updated, etc.
> Obviously, the number of different patches for the same issue is an
> indicator of user needs. In particular:
> 1. Fail with if/unless

-1 on if/unless on available.

-0 on fail (would prefer an if task) but the functionality would simplify 
many of todays setups.

> 2. Regexp replace

This is mostly used to replace constants in file. We should instead encourage 
people to do a filtered copy + exclude to do this (like ant build file). 
There is probably other legitimate uses though ... can anyone think of any?

> 3. Daemons (Exec and Java)

+1 but should wait till post 1.4 (see below)

> 4. Prompted Input to property.

+1 but should wait till post 1.4 (see below)

> 5. XXXXXXX (task name omitted to protect the innocent).

-1 because XXXXXX is evil ;)

> I have decided to hold off producing the 1.4 Beta until I get some
> indications against this list. Tomorrow, I will be committing a number of
> these outstanding patches (ejbjar will be first).

All the other ones that I have already -1 ed or said that I would -1 (lowcost 
antcall, foreach, lazy classloading etc) still stand for stated reasons.

However I am really concerned about you wanting to add more functionality 
before a beta release. Most of this stuff while good (dependset, configure, 
async exec, input getters, C++ support) is not going to be guarenteed to be 
well tested or reliable. If you recall some of the limitations of current ant 
resulted from exactly this behaviour (people adding "minor" enhancements 
before a release without knowing full consequences). I think it should be 
bugfixes only before a release.



| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |

View raw message