ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Re: Ant build.xml
Date Tue, 04 Apr 2000 12:02:37 GMT
Jason Hunter wrote:
> Kuiper, Arnout wrote:
> > I agree. Personally I would go even further by having full blown
> > releases. This makes Ant much more usable for the end-user.
> +1
> It seems obvious to me that Ant should have full blown releases.
> I tell people about Ant all the time, people who have no interest in
> servlets (gasp), and it seems clear they should be able to go get a
> standard build of this nifty build tool.  I'd argue ant shouldn't
> necessarily have the same release schedule as Tomcat, since it's already
> being used far outside Tomcat-land.  Separate mailing list, separate
> trees, separate releases.  (Provided, of course, someone is willing to
> take the time to be release manager.)
> Now, what to build Tomcat against?  The last stable ant version would
> make sense, it helps Costin, and is what Cocoon and company would do.
> We can have a build-latest.xml that builds Tomcat with the latest Ant
> (for testing and such), and a build.xml that builds with the latest
> stable.
> This will mean that the Tomcat tree will need to include an ant##.jar
> representing the latest stable ant.  No more bootstrapping.  Maybe
> that's a good thing?  :-)
> Opinions?

Totally +1, but please let's make Ant 1.0, not Ant 3.1 ;-)

Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<>                             Friedrich Nietzsche
 Missed us in Orlando? Make it up with ApacheCON Europe in London!
------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------

View raw message