ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ken Wood <>
Subject Re: Proposition
Date Thu, 06 Jul 2000 19:59:29 GMT
I agree 100% that this is a BAD IDEA. Ant's job
is to BUILD code. People's jobs include writing the
code, and agreeing on standards. If you can't agree,
and you have a CZAR who can decreee, the CZAR can run
formatters on all the code as a pre-cursor to running
Ant, rather than saddling Ant with one team's problem.

But, if you really want Ant to do it, write a task
of your own, do it, and move on. I don't think we
should dump every task everyone could dream of into
Ant, when Ant was designed to be extensible by the
end user to handle specific issues at each user's

Russell Gold wrote:
> At 10:34 AM 7/6/00 -0700, "Vitaly Stulsky" <> wrote:
> >I wish to propose some extensions for current ANT version. For our project
> >is very important to keep standard code look, but every developer tries to use
> >their own coding style and conventions. Now we had CVS access from ANT and
> >it will be good to have some kind of source code formater (e.g. JIndent or
> >something like that).
> >
> >Is anyone interested in such things?
> Pardon me while I run screaming: AAAGH!
> I feel strongly that this is a Bad Idea.  If you are having a problem with
> standards, the way to fix it is through agreement on standards. Get
> together and agree to follow a set of standards rather than having a tool
> convert code. You don't want to clutter cvs with diffs caused as a result
> of the battle of the braces, and you will find it impossible to automate
> every part of your standards - naming conventions, for example. This means
> that you are going to have to find a human-based solution anyway. Talk to
> each other! Agree that for the good of the team, you will each give in a
> bit and adopt a common way of doing things.



  DSS & the production team no longer exists. Production
  activities such as builds, installers, and CD making
  are now the responsibility of each product group.

  This is NOT a change we dedided upon. It is how
  i2 now does business as the details of the 
  i2/Aspect merger re-organization filter down. 

  John, Gary, and Ken are transistioning to new activities,
  including but not limited to production type work for
  specific teams. They are wrapping up open committments, 
  and the production-team is NOT taking on any new committments,
  such as setting up new product builds, new installers, or
  making CDs. The only requests that they will be working on
  are those related to wrapping up existing committments, or
  related to the teams that they are now members of.

  Within a month, the production-team mailing list will be


View raw message