ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jon Stevens <...@latchkey.com>
Subject Re: [MEETING] January 12th. SF Bay.
Date Tue, 19 Dec 2000 07:30:19 GMT
on 12/18/2000 10:59 PM, "Peter Donald" <donaldp@apache.org> wrote:

> Be carefule how you put this. Look at the CVS tree and the people who have
> actually made patches against ant in say the last 2 months. I suspect you
> will be the lone committer who is at the meeting that you say aims "to
> report to the Ant-Dev list a consensus about the general direction we
> should take to move things further". Do you think this is appropriate ? ;)

So, are you saying that you don't want to meet?

> The ideas about Ant2.0 (at least the non-revolutionary ones) are easily
> accessible in archives. No real revolutionary ideas have been discussed
> (except for two latest proposals) so I am not sure what it is that you
> intend to come to a consensus about.

"(except for two latest proposals)"

Are you just ignoring those then?

I think it is very clear what I intend to start to come to a consensus
about. I want to see a well defined Functional Specification that a group of
people can agree to work towards. Nothing more. Nothing less.

At this point, with the hundred page emails of everyone saying 50 different
things, I'm not sure how that is clear to anyone.

> What makes you think that the current ideas about Ant2.0 product is a
> mishmash. I think the aims/designs are relatively clear - the
> implementation is completely fuzzy but there is little use hashing it out
> when only one of the developers who is proposing a revolution is present.

Ok, where is a single clear well defined functional specification for Ant
2.0 that everyone agrees on? Sorry, I missed it.


p.s. I removed Brian from the CC because he doesn't need the extra email
discussion I'm sure.

thanks,

-jon


Mime
View raw message