ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: ant 1.3 ? ant 2.0? timeline
Date Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:01:32 GMT
At 12:44  15/1/01 -0800, Ioan Mitrea wrote:
>I would like to know if there is any general idea about when Ant 1.3
>would be released .

I would hope soon .. we need a week or so to stabilize - after that I may
raise a vote to see if it gets done ;)

>The same question about Ant 2.0

no idea - was going to be mid-year sometime but that was before the
"discussion" started.

>>From what I can see on the list there is not much consensus about what
>Ant 2.0 will be.

I think there is consensus on what Ant2 will do but not consensus on how
underlying data-model will work.

>But is there a consensus way of dealing with backwards compatibility?

try to keep it unless backwards compatability is wrong (at least for
Ant2.0) - we are trying to keep full backward compatability for Ant1.3 thou.

>Will old build.xml files still run or will there be tools converting
>build.xml files ?

For ant2 there will be a converter.

>Is this a major concern in the design of Ant 2 or the benefits coming
>from the architectural change
>are more important than the compatibility concerns ?

As I said there will be an easy path to updating I would guess (via xslt
sheet I assume) so when the time comes there will be concern for
compatability but we are not there yet.

>I'm wondering about what are the risks of converting a complex Makefile
>build system to ant and implementing testing on top of it before Ant 2.0
>comes out.

Really depends on your environment. I call ant from makefiles to do certain
things. If your code base is mostly java then stick with ant - however if
you include C++/C and don't have time to build your own ant tasks then Make
is still the way to go.



| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |

View raw message