ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ken Wood <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Ant2 codebase adoption process
Date Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:35:16 GMT
I agree.

I moved our builds from make/Imake based approach to
Ant. That required writing build.xml files and then
creating the jars and zips and comparing them, line by line,
byte by byte, with the same jars and zips coming from the
old builds until I could exactly reproduce our build products.
Back then, I couldn't even use the earliest versions of Ant
because of various issues. Issues that were fixed by a very
responsive and responsible development community, and
my hat's off to all of you, then and now.

As Diane says, if Ant2 provides capability that I must
have for our builds, I'll just do the same thing all over again,
although I'd expect it to be bit easier...

Conversely, the burden is on all the Ant 2 visionaries to give
us a product worth moving to! It better handle parallelism,
or threads, or what ever name you want to call it, so that
we can start servers, bang them for tests, and shut down,
and deal gracefully with errors.
Or run tasks that are not dependent, such as compiling java
classes while compiling JSP's...

We better be able to define new tasks easily and drop them
in via a simple mechanism.

There are probably other issues, but that's not my main point.
My main point is, if you build it (well enough) we will convert...

Diane Holt wrote:

> As someone who wears a "build-master" hat (among others), I can say this:
> If there's some compelling reason to switch, it'll get done. IOW, if
> there's something I really want/need with Ant2 that I can't get from Ant1,
> then I'll grab Ant2 and have at the build.

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

View raw message