ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: removing deprecated stuff
Date Thu, 22 Nov 2001 20:05:46 GMT
On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 00:53, Stephane Bailliez wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Donald []
> >
> > aesthetically it may be a nice idea but I can't see an
> > advantage from an
> > engineering perspective. If feature X (copydir, deltree,
> > whatever) is not
> > costing us anything to maintain then why remove it? There is
> > still people
> > using old versions of ant for one reason or another. Some
> > have just never
> > seen a reason to upgrade. When they do upgrade I would like
> > things to work as
> > much as possible.
> I understand, but you are shooting yourself in the foot if you do not
> upgrade incrementally.
> If you don't do it, you perfectly know the risks.
> The more you wait, the larger the gap, the greatest the pain. :-)

I know some people who are still using ant version 1.1, I know people still 
using 1.2 and I even know people using tomcats version of ant. Some of the 
build files created with these projects will inevitably break regardless of 
what we do do to non compatible backwards changes (like tomcat --> 1.1) 
however many of the things should still work. 

With a project used in as wide a context as ant is now I don't think it is 
acceptable that our opinion be "screw the user if they no update properly". 

If thats not clear enough, -1 on any backwards incompatible change that is 
done for aesthetic reasons ;)

> > Unless feature X happens to be restricting further innovation
> > in some fashion then why don't we just keep it ?
> Because they should not be used anymore, we have been telling it for some
> time and the definition of deprecated is crystal-clear :)

The defintion of deprecated is not the issue. It is the people who upgrade 
from 1.1 to 1.4. They should still have their build files works as much as is 
possible - they never recieved any deprecation warnings.

> > Remember not everyone lives in internet time and may still be
> > using older
> > versions of ant. Besides we may end up braking gump because
> > some of the
> > projects run by gump (ie some exolab ones) still use old
> > versions of ant and
> > I think that is enough of an issue to make breaking backwards
> > compatability for no reason at all truly suck.
> Then we must ask Exolab to upgrade their build...
> but I don't believe the projects we depend from are so out of date as
> AdaptX was.

A few months ago the OpenEJB developers popped on this and complained that 
ant was not compatible with ant from when it was bundled with a really really 
early version of Tomcat. The OpenEJB developers are presumably more uptodate 
than most development shops ... and we can't get them to upgrade their builds.



| Does the name `Pavlov' ring a bell? |

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

View raw message