ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Conor MacNeill" <>
Subject Re: PATCH: Attributes of Target can reference properties
Date Wed, 04 Jul 2001 01:25:38 GMT
From: "Peter Vogel" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 7:53 AM
Subject: RE: PATCH: Attributes of Target can reference properties

> Actually, he had some very cogent points about the evolution of
> ant that took place since he was subsumed by TomCat work, after
> bumping heads against Peter D. several times, making the point that
> the evolutionary direction that Peter D. was advocating was "not ant".
> When he was told that his absence from the ant community for N months
> effectively removed his rights as a voting member of the ant community,
> and that he would need to "earn" the right to commit and vote, he was
> rightly insulted and gave up.  I personally don't blame him.

I suggest you go back and read the archive if this is your view. IMHO, It
is wrong. Duncan's voting rights were never removed and I believe he still
has those rights to this day. The record will prove that all of Duncan's
vetos were honoured, I believe. Duncan's position was that, as the original
developer of Ant, he should have more rights than the rest of the
committers to determine the vision for Ant. This was the gist of a proposal
put to the PMC in January and it was not agreed to then. You may want to
read the minutes from that meeting.

The relevant quote is
        "Roy stated that the people who vote for a release are accountable
        for its maintenance.  Roy also stated the name goes with the
        majority.  James asked who should be given the right to vote.
        Brian answered committers"

I believe Duncan's position, as the original developer, was that he alone
would decide the vision for Ant (thought leader of final arbiter,
whatever). As was reaffirmed in this meeting, the content of the project
called Ant is decided by the majority of Ant committers not one single
person, be it Duncan or Peter Donald.

When the PMC and the Apache founders disagreed with Duncan, he chose to do
his own thing. Fair enough.

> Now, since then, Ant has made a couple of excellent strides, some largely
> due to you, Diane, in that the documentation has improved dramatically
> a number of inconsistencies have been cleaned up (sadly, not some of the
> worst
> ones, like the fact that a path cannot be declared that uses properties
> defined in a target because a path cannot be declared within a target).
> The situation I see now is a sad one: you have essentially one
> member of the committer community who chooses to enforce his peculiar
> of where ant should head by using his -1 veto power as a committer while
> his own contributions to ant amount primarily to a minor subproject and
> little or nothing to do with the core of ant.  He rarely misses an
> opportunity
> to turn reasoned debate into flame on this list.  Sadly, I haven't
> to
> ignore the bait yet -- but I'm working on it.  I'm normally a very
> reasonable
> guy :-)

Personally I too am not happy with the tenor of many discussions on this


View raw message