ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Duncan Davidson" <dun...@x180.com>
Subject Re: Proposed Revolution: AntEater (a proposal for Ant Core 2.0)
Date Tue, 14 Nov 2000 02:12:32 GMT
On 11/13/00 6:01 PM, "Conor MacNeill" <conor@ebinteractive.com.au> wrote:

> If I look at the revolution in Tomcat, I can see that it is still a source
> of much tension in the tomcat-dev list. A revolution provides an opportunity
> to split the community. We should only have that if it is really necessary.
> If we have a revolution and everyone moves over to work on it, then why have
> a revolution :-) ? If we have disagreement then yes, a revolution may be
> required.  Perhaps we should wait to see whether these is such disagreement.
> From the list you posted, I feel there will be broad agreement.
> 
> What do you think?

What I hope is that when I post a full proposal + source code ideas on 12/4
-- that there will be broad agreement and that everyone will be happy and
that we'll all go and have pizza and beer after. :) And then we'll just have
discussions about all the little nits that may be there. If this happens,
then it really isn't a Revolution (or maybe it's just a "velvet revolution"
like they had in Prague). It's just a process by which I made a proposal.

And if it works out this way, and AntEater is ratified as the
codebase/direction for Ant 2.0, then there will be no need to even mention
the word revolution (or even the word "AntEater" unless we use that for
something else) again.

However, I want to be clear that this is a break and I want to abide by the
process in which such breaks are to be made. Maybe revolution is too strong
a word. Maybe it's just a proposal and we'll see what happens. :)

.duncan

-- 
James Duncan Davidson                                        duncan@x180.com
                                                                  !try; do()


Mime
View raw message