ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craeg Strong <>
Subject Re: what I want to see in the next version of ant
Date Tue, 23 Jul 2002 21:47:33 GMT

I think everyone has made some good points.   It seems to me that the 
best way to move
forward is to create a seperate CVS area for Ant 2 efforts.   I think 
there is absolutely
nothing wrong with "a lot of people's favorite small addition to 1.x" 
and I think that should
continue (subject to previously mentioned guidelines) in the 1.x CVS area.

Meanwhile, work can begin in a SEPARATE area on Ant 2.   I'm also not 
terribly concerned
with what gets imported as the base for the Ant 2 effort, because I am 
quite sure that it will
get "refactored mercilessly" multiple times before Ant 2 is anywhere 
close its first public
release.  Such refactorings would never be possible in the 1.x code 
base, and that is (part of)
the point.  It seems that the majority of people on the list want to 
start (ant2) with some
snapshot of the 1.x base code, rather than a proposal.  Fine.

My main point is, can we pleeze establish a _separate_  ant2 CVS area so 
we can get moving
on this?  I would even go further-- we should create an ant2-dev mailing 
list so that ant2 discussions
can be had separately from the folks who want to proceed with their 
"favorite small addition to 1.x"
Of course, many, or perhaps most developers will want to subscribe to 
_both_ ant-dev and ant2-dev,
but it will allow developers to be more selective about the email 
traffic they receive... (hint hint)

Again, I stress that this model has been used quite successfully on many 
open source projects.
I believe they call it an "internal fork"?  Natural and normal for a 
project in Ant's stage of development...


--Craeg wrote:

> wrote on 07/23/2002 07:31:19 AM:
>>>In any case, I definitely think it's time to
>>>stop spinning our wheels on 2.0 and actually start making it happen.
>>I think we were making it happen already. There are few changes
>>that are proposed, work is well under way - the only question is 
>>if we'll call it 1.6 or 2.0 or 3.0. And the name can only be set
>>in a release plan - until this happen we just work on 'the main tree'
>>and all changes are for 'the next major release of ant'.
>I don't see how you can say that placing Ant 1.x in 'maintenance mode' is 
>happening already. There is *NO* work at the moment on Ant 2.0 as a 
>separate sanctioned item, there is no CVS repository, etc.
>Giving it a new name with the same codebase doesn't address the existing 
>documented requirements in a specific way. I see no push underway to take 
>the Ant 2.0 requirements documents and plan for those to be integrated 
>into the code base. I can see a lot of people's favourite small addition 
>to 1.x being added to the tree.
>dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting

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

View raw message