ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craeg K Strong <>
Subject Re: what I want to see in the next version of ant
Date Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:59:36 GMT
I, too, agree with Steve's suggestions.

Let me re-state what I think Diane and Steve have said, just
to make sure I have gotten it correct:

2.0 becomes a parallel effort, either a CVS branch or a whole new tree

"focus of innovation" moves to 2.0

1.x effort continues on, but only for
  a) bug fixes
  b) selected new tasks
  c) minor additions that make sense for 1.x

What I mean by 1c) is, for example, enhancing <xmlcatalog> to support
external catalog files using Norm Walsh's library.  It has nothing to
do with re-architecting Ant in any way, and is merely extending the
existing design.

When this patch is accepted, you may want to call the public release
that contains it "1.6" even though the 2.0 effort will be (hopefully :-)
well underway by that point.

For any given submission or idea, in case it is not obvious, you could vote
on whether it is okay to put into 1.x or it really belongs on the
2.0 branch.  Of course there probably wouldn't be a public release
for 2.x for awhile, but those on the cutting edge could always use a
nightly build.  For example, a few shops started using the "alpha" Apache 2.x
webserver many months before it became the "official release" -- while
most folks stuck with the more stable 1.3

If this agrees with your proposals, then I am all in favor.  This allows
those who simply want to add their minor new task to
Ant to work in parallel with those who are trying to push the envelope.

I have seen this model work successfully in other open source projects,
for example Apache, Cocoon, and Zope.  I think it is a good one.


Diane Holt wrote:
> I'm +1 on having 1.5 be our last 1.x release (other than just maintenance
> releases for 1.5) and moving on to 2.0. I think it's clear from the recent
> rounds of proposed new/changed functionality that people are ready for
> that to happen. Personally, I think the "all tasks allowed at the top" is
> a radical enough change to warrant it -- even though it is doable in 1.x.
> (But, please, don't let my saying that start a big round&round on whether
> that's "really true" -- it's just my opinion, and not the sole determining
> factor, by any means.)
> Diane
> =====
> (

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

View raw message