ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthew Inger <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] PropertyCopy and Foreach (NEW OPTIONAL TASKS)
Date Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:02:20 GMT
I'm not writing these tasks with the sole purpose of
getting them into ant.  They are tasks that were
developed in order to do anything useful that would
help us build/install our product.  I figured, why
not share some of the work with people who have
repeatedly asked for types of tasks.

Why should you give a -1 to something in the optional
package?  The majority of the stuff in the optional package
is only useful to a small handful of people.  And it was
my understanding that it was for tasks that were useful,
but not going to part of the core.

And I have repeatedly expressed that I was willing
to help out, but those requests seem to always be

On Fri, 2001-09-21 at 18:58, Peter Donald wrote:
> -1 for reasons already stated.
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 05:26, Matthew Inger wrote:
> > I can understand them not wanting that kind of stuff as part
> > of the core of ant.  But to be so blind as to not even open
> > the possibility of including it as part of the optional tasks
> > is silly, from my point of view.  
> Naturally. 
> I heard a lot of people say how silly it is that java doesn't have 
> pointers/multiple inheritance/<insert some "essential" feature here>. From 
> the point of view of these people it is silly that these features aren't 
> added to java because you don't have to use them if you don't want to. 
> Personally I like that Java is simple and removed all this crapola.
> > It's a bit
> > frustrating.  I put all this time and effort into developing
> > these tasks with generality in mind. I personally am rather
> > annoyed that even though i have tried repeatedly, it seems
> > impossible to contribute to the project.
> Well spending time writing tasks that are obviously going to be rejected and 
> then whining when they get rejected is probably not a good way to go about 
> contributing to the project ... It would be better to understand what the 
> goals of ant-dev are and then contribute to said goals.
> > I remember a time when software was driven by requirements,
> > and more specifically languages/tools were driven the needs
> > of it's users.  It seems that ANT is a whole different animal
> > that is not driven by the needs of the user, but by a vision
> > of what it's committer's think it should be.  
> and this vision is directly related to user requirements...
> > Frankly, i can't
> > understand why it is this way, but as of now there is nothing
> > i can do about it.  It is obvious that the users need more of
> > these types of tasks to be able to effectively achieve their
> > goals.  And not all users have the time/knowledge to create
> > their own tasks.
> Feel free to start a external repository. If it is such an "obvious" need 
> then you will have a sure-hit project on your hands. You will also be able to 
> avoid us "thought police".
> > I would think it would be in the best interests of the project
> > and it's users to accept useful tasks from anyone who is willing
> > to contribute.  The only tasks I've seen them accept in the time
> > i've been using ant are those related to version control and
> > ejb.
> Right. So who would be maintaining, documenting, helping with and evolving 
> these tasks? Oh thats right ant-dev. It is easy to volunteer other peoples 
> time - eh? Even more fun would be dealing with N different implementations of 
> same task/functionality.
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Pete
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> "Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, 
> but that is not the reason we are doing it" -- Richard Feynman
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Inger (
Sedona Corporation
455 S. Gulph Road, Suite 300
King of Prussia, PA 19406
(484) 679-2213
"Self-respect - the secure feeling that no one,
 as yet, is suspicious." -H.L. Mencken 

View raw message