ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: Ant 2 et al.
Date Tue, 09 Jul 2002 08:33:58 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi <> wrote on 07/09/2002 06:03:54 PM:

> Project means that it's the build project.
> It's not a project descriptor.
> The build-project, not the project-descriptor.
The repetition doesn't make it more obvious... 'Build-Project'? I can't 
think of a single time I've heard someone say "I'm just going to update 
the 'build-project' file". Build file, yes. Ant build file, yes. Project 
file - never.

> It's all about getting understood.
> I would just call it <ant> and get along.
> Besides, it's really easy to make <ant> and <project> both work, so we 
> have new syntax and backward compatibility with really no effort.
> How's that?
Works for me, but again, this isn't my main point. My main point was to 
try to raise the Ant 2 proposals and see if there was any plan to do 
anything with them, or if they're simply spinning their metaphorical 

So far, it's mainly been "Who needs the proposals? Ant 1 can do 

Again, my issue is that there doesn't *seem* to be a drive toward the user 
requirements ( ), other than 

> Nicola Ken Barozzi         
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message