I have a question about this... Are myrmidon and mutant both at points where I, as a interested end user, could download a binary and run some tests to evaluate how these two approaches work? Please don't say I could get the sources from CVS and build them.... I know I COULD do that, but we are in the middle of two releases with three more on the back burner. I just don't have time. I'm not a committer, I know I can't vote, but I hope that the opinions of us people who are too busy to commit still have some sway. I don't have time to read through both code bases and evaluate the pros and cons of the source code. (I wish I did have time...). All I could hope to do is try doing some builds and see how these versions perform. If not, then I'll continue on my merry with with Ant 1.4.1 and wait to see what the community ends up with for Ant 2... Conor MacNeill wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to suggest moving to a vote on which codebase we wish to > adopt for Ant2. > > I suggest we have a discussion period from now until Feb 6th. > Thereafter a committer vote should be proposed. > > I'm not really sure of what form such a vote should take. I think > majority approval would be the go rather than consensus approval > (http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html) but we can discuss that. > The situation we face is not really covered by the rules as far as I can > see. > > The obvious candidates. IMHO are myrmidon and mutant. Other candidates > may emerge in the discussion period. I do not believe we should include > Ant 1.x as an option but again let us discuss. > > Anyway, lets have a vote now on the process with the following points > (+/- 1 on each please) > > [ ] Timetable - vote on or shortly after the 6th Feb > > [ ] Codebase adoption is by majority approval > > Conor > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > For additional commands, e-mail: -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: