ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Duncan Davidson <>
Subject Re: Updated design docs
Date Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:40:34 GMT
On 1/9/01 5:50 AM, "James Cook" <> wrote:

> I think this is a nice document, but it can hardly be considered as a
> requirements document. There is way too much *how* things will work as opposed
> to *what* needs to be accomplished.

I don't think that we need to make such distinctions. If we agree in text
how things should work, then we're good.

> I don't want to rabble-rouse (sp?), but isn't James simply documenting
> AntEater? I realize he has glommed onto the workspace concept introduced in
> AntFarm, but other than that, it looks more like a personal design document.

Am I being asked to go away thank you very much again? :)

> How should someone with a totally different approach submit their ideas? For
> example, I think my proposal has merit by being able to handle the concept of
> a workspace as simply another Task. And an optional Task, at that. Should I
> produce a more detailed design document similar to James'? Should *all* of the
> proposal submitters do the same?

If you have a totally different vision of how Ant should be, comment here.
If that vision isn't taking off, then maybe its not a) well understood
enough (which I doubt), or b) maybe it's not what Ant wants to be.

I understand itch scratching. I support it. However, if what you want to do
is not what Ant is trying to be, then you have to consider other mechanisms
of scratching that itch.

> Why don't we spend a collective hour defining what a requirements document is?
> I was waiting to see a req. doc before spending my time on a design document
> in order to make certain I address each requirement fully.

How many layers of process are we going to put in so that we can have
everyone propose something? This isn't a popularity contest. At least it
shouldn't be.

James Duncan Davidson                              
                                                                  !try; do()

View raw message