ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Erik" <eme...@geekfarm.org>
Subject RE: Proposed Revolution: AntEater (a proposal for Ant Core 2.0)
Date Tue, 14 Nov 2000 05:21:29 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Donald [mailto:donaldp@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 6:25 PM
> To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed Revolution: AntEater (a proposal for Ant Core 2.0)
>
>
> At 01:01  14/11/00 +1100, you wrote:
> >Duncan,
> >
> >Whilst I am happy to have an ant revolution, I wonder whether we
> need it. If
> >we all agree on a direction with regard to ant 2.0's objectives,
> we can move
> >forward without a revolution. I'm not saying that we wouldn't want some
> >revolutionary code and architecture changes and perhaps some unusual
> >instability in ant.
> >
> >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?
>
> I think that the reasons for revolution would mainly be because it will be
> breaking backwards compatability which is a PITA but necessary
> IMHO. As the
> the architecture will change significantly then it is unreasonable to
> expect end users to use ant with it constatly changing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete

Duncan,

Will Ant 2.0 break backwards compatibility?

Erik


Mime
View raw message