ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: [warning inflammatory email] Stagn-ant?
Date Mon, 08 Jul 2002 08:42:20 GMT
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, <> wrote:

> What to do with Ant2 has been an unconscious decision of evolution
> since the proposals were put in place and not voted on.

The last time we talked about voting on the proposals, one of the
people working on one of the proposals said it would be premature.
We're waiting for them to get into a votable state, it seems.

> For me an acceptable process would be that the committers decide to
> put Ant 1.x into maintenance mode and choose what to do with the
> existing proposals:

Still a process problem.  What happens with a -1 for each of your
alternatives?  The result would be that Ant 1.x continues its
evolutionary development.  Seems this is what is happening right now,
just that the -1s haven't been placed explicitly.

> But simple things like looping and conditional processing are very
> important., the if and unless just don't cut it as the build gets
> bigger.

ant-dev doesn't seem to be convinced that this is true - I'm still
doing bigger builds without loops or the if task (even though I've
written one to prove it could be done as a task inside Ant 1.x

> and the core classloading and optional/built-in issues get worse.

But may get better with the next iteration of putting Ant2 feature
into Ant 1.  I'd expect antlib to be part of 1.6 in some way.

> What is the acceptable level of backward compatibility? Build file?

Definitively, yes.  Minor changes are OK, not more than that.

I have no problem with allowing things that are currently impossible
with Ant 1.x - say target-less build files.  But a build file written
for Ant 1.x should work in Ant2 and produce the same results.

> API?

Desirable, yes.  May be done via an extra layer.


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

View raw message