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 08:28:41 GMT
On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, <> wrote:

> 'Is Ant dead?'

Nope, we are just doing the next release, you know 8-).

> Ant 1.x has been around a very long time now, and some of the
> proposals have been around for more than a year. It seems that there
> is a general unwillingness to make a move forward.

Depends on what you think is a move forward.  And there sure is
process problem as Conor points out.

> Proposals still seem to be heavily rooted in Ant 1.x terminology and
> technology

Which means that users will have a not so steep learning curve when
switching to Ant2.  What's wrong with this?

> In the meantime, other projects have come along building on top of
> and next to Ant (Jelly, Maven, Centipede etc), usurping what would
> seem to be Ant 2's territory.

I have to disagree here.  To me Ant is a build tool and nothing more.
There is more than enough territory for other projects that build on
Ant.  Maven is doing far more than Ant2 should ever try to do IMHO.

> These projects have no 'history' to deal with and can freely move
> forward with new ideas and technologies, that the Ant team seems
> reluctant to touch, e.g. scripting, backward compatibility etc.

"scripting" is not a thing that the Ant team seems to be reluctant to
touch because of history, but is something that has been very strongly
vetoed by active committers.  Not because of historic reasons, but
because people feel that scripting is the wrong way to solve a

"breaking backwards compatibility" is the sure way to make users stick
to Ant 1.x, especially if it unclear which benefit Ant2 should bring.
If I'm happy with my current build process, why should I switch and
rewrite my build files?  What about all those custom tasks people have
invested time and money in?

> Maybe Ant2 will come from outside of ant-dev?

Some ot the best ideas that have influenced the proposals came from
outseide ant-dev, sure.

> Maybe Jelly, for example, will become what everyone uses and people
> will gradually stop using Ant as their main tool for builds.

If so, would that be bad?

> What do users actually want?

This is the way the requirements list has been put together.

> To write xml files and understand the oddities of history?

I don't follow you here, sorry.  Part of the requirements is that
Ant is not tiet to XML, another one is that we allow for different
frontends that (in a GUI case) may be able to hide the details from
the user.


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

View raw message