ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jon Skeet" <>
Subject RE: Should ANT2 be ANT3
Date Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:57:51 GMT
> But we started using the name ANT2, what a year and a half ago?
> As far as I know there is no concrete architecture design that has
> been voted, the only thing done is a list of features we would like
> (more or less). That can hardly be catalogued as CONCRETE.
> The only design is whatever Donald has done which I have never
> seen it been discussed at any length or in detail. Are all 
> the committers
> happy with his design? Do you all understand and are ready to
> approve it? I am not trying to pass judgement on the code, but
> can we say we have things CONCRETE?

Perhaps not. I suspect "we" (I use the term loosely :) started using the
term too early, to be honest. Maybe codenames would be better in the

All I'm really concerned about is not confusing people - and I think if
we come up with Ant v2.0, people will start to think it's the thing
that's been talked about as ANT2, and understandably so. Do you disagree
with that part, or just the general philosophy?


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message