ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Magesh Umasankar" <>
Subject Re: Ant 2 et al.
Date Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:08:35 GMT
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stefan Bodewig" <>

> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Conor MacNeill <>
> wrote:
> > I identified what was wrong with Ant1.
> I completely agree that there are things in Ant 1.x that are bad and
> that can only be fixed by changes that break certain parts of the API.
> I also complete agree with the Ant1 issues you have identified and
> that they need to be fixed.
> My key requirements for backwards compatibility are build file level
> compatibility and "practical" (as you call it) compatibility for task
> writers.  I think this can be done by compatibility layers that both
> proposals already provide to a certain degree.  Taking this point I
> can live with either proposal as well as the evolutionary approach.

As I mentioned in
I am still interested in knowing how much of the Ant2 
requirements as defined in
have been met.

I think, this gives a yardstick to measure by from 
the user's perspective and not just the developer's.
This is important because it is the user who will
be most affected, if at all, by the adoption
of one of the proposals.

> I also completely agree with you that a consensus vote on which path
> to follow is bound to fail and that the only decision can be made by a
> majority vote.  

I think we all agreed to this (maybe except one)
earlier on when we discussed this in Jan'02.

> up - I'd abstain from the vote and go with the majority anyway.

I would be glad to vote for one of the 
proposals if a vote is called after the
requirements->implementation mapping is

> Stefan


*  Divorce: Future tense of marriage.  *

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

View raw message