ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ted Neward" <tnew...@javageeks.com>
Subject RE: Ack!
Date Fri, 08 Jun 2001 01:43:27 GMT
If this is the way the open source community works....
... Microsoft has nothing to worry about.

Ted Neward
{.NET||Java} Instructor, DevelopMentor  (http://www.develop.com)
http://www.javageeks.com/~tneward/index.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diane Holt [mailto:holtdl@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 11:33 AM
> To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Ack!
>
>
> Peter and Jose Alberto -- is there any way you guys could shake hands and
> start over?  For the record: When Peter mentioned "lieing" (ie., "lying"),
> he was listing those things, in general, that will send him into his
> less-than-diplomatic mode (and I believe it was actually a sideways
> reference to a completely separate thread with a completely different
> person -- 'nuff said).  He said he thought your ideas were "inane", not
> "insane" -- although I'm not sure that makes the comment any better
> (having already adjudged them as such makes it difficult for you to
> evaluate them objectively, Peter, doesn't it?).  And as for "tirades" --
> you've both sent lots of long messages on this topic, but I'm not sure
> either side could be seen as having been a "tirade" (long, alone, doesn't
> qualify).
>
> You both have strong and, apparently, very different opinions on this --
> but surely there must be a way to hash those out without getting mired in
> did-to/did-not stuff, yes?
>
> As for the real topic -- personally, I'm a bit more in Jose Alberto's camp
> -- I'd just as soon not have templating than to have to go with an
> explicit 2-stage process to get it.  If you can hide the stages (eg., 'cc'
> can actually be a 3-stage process [preprocessor, compiler, linker], but I
> can still just say 'cc' instead of having to invoke 'cpp', 'cc', 'ld'),
> then I might be okay with it.  I also like the suggestion (I think it was
> Conor's?) of having a way to specify default settings for task attributes
> (eg., javac.debug=no). I like it much better than the "template"-type
> thing I suggested, since you don't have to name your template and then
> refer to its name -- you can just refer to the regular task name instead.
>
> I haven't contributed much to the discussion up to this point, because I
> still feel more like an Ant end-user than a developer, so I really can't
> comment on the technical aspects of what either side is proposing.  What
> I'd really like to see is some examples of how what's being proposed would
> work on the end-user side.  And/or maybe some higher-level explanation of
> why Plan A would be better/worse/easier/harder to use/maintain(the tool
> and/or the build-files) than Plan B.
>
> Thanks,
> Diane
>
> --- Jose Alberto Fernandez <j_a_fernandez@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > From: Peter Donald [mailto:donaldp@apache.org]
> > >
> > > At 05:18 PM 6/6/01 +0100, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> > > >
> > > >	lieing,
> > >
> > > never accused you of that
> >
> > Read again the message I was replying to. I cut & pasted these words
> > from
> > there.
> > >
> > > > insane,
> > >
> > > never accused you of that
> > >
> > > >tirade
> > >
> > > is descriptipe of your efforts.
> > >
> > > >I have heard your arguments I have not being convinced by
> > > them. If you want,
> > > >we can agree to disagree and live it at that.
> > >
> > > Most people would who disagree actually give reasons, the conversation
> > > continues and solution is produced. Interesting that you
> > > choose not to go
> > > this path.
> > >
> >
> > I have given reason to you, plenty of them. You do not accept them,
> > fine.
> > That is your prerogative. It won't make me loose my sleep.
> >
> > > >About my supposedly false statement:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Try this one instead.
> > >
> > > <?xml version="1.0"?>
> > > <project name="test" default="devtest" basedir=".">
> > >    <target name="x">
> > >      <broken-javac-task-reference/>
> > >    </target>
> > > </project>
> > >
> > > >Imagine that, it did what I said it would.
> > >
> > > ooops - seems like you are wrong ... again.
> > >
> >
> > Who said the above project is *syntactically* invalid? The syntax looks
> > correct to me. Next time read my paragraphs in full. I said
> > (paraphrazing)
> > "you may run them with -Dyxz... if you want to check for unknown tasks",
> > so
> > you can.
> >
> > Chiao,
> >
> > Jose Alberto
> >
>
>
> =====
> (holtdl@yahoo.com)
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
> a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


Mime
View raw message