Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Message-ID: <3B6F9F8F.1020400@ingenta.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 08:58:07 +0100
From: Andrew May <amay@ingenta.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:0.9.2+) Gecko/20010801
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: Patch Audit
References: <0ea701c11dc8$c8bba550$48e2223f@cognetnt>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Obviously, as I submitted the additional PVCS tasks I'm somewhat biased, 
but I do think there's a good case for accepting improvements/additions 
to tasks that were not in the 1.3 release at this point. This probably 
applied more to optional tasks than to the core tasks.

In the case of the PVCS task, it's a fairly major change, and I'd 
probably have to do things differently if the original task gets into a 
release and builds up a user base - it's easier to make more fundemental 
changes at this point. Not that I wouldn't welcome some feedback before 
it goes in.

-Andrew

Conor MacNeill wrote:
> I have gone through all the patches I could find and determined which ones
> have not been applied or explicitly rejected. The results of this can be
> found here
> http://jakarta.apache.org/~conor/patchaudit.html
> 
> I don't guarantee that this list includes all outstanding patches, that
> none of these patches may indeed have been committed or that they have been
> specifically rejected by a committer. This list only covers patches
> submitted to the ant-dev list, not enhancements posted to BugZilla.
> 
> I think there are a number of patches which should be included in 1.4. I'd
> like an indication from other committers of
> 1. Any patches which you believe should be included in 1.4
> 2. Patches which should be rejected
> 3. Patches which can wait till after 1.4 (I'll assume this to include any
> not covered in 1 and 2.
> 
> Patch authors may also indicate if the patch is no longer viable, needs to
> be updated, etc.
> 
> Obviously, the number of different patches for the same issue is an
> indicator of user needs. In particular:
> 1. Fail with if/unless
> 2. Regexp replace
> 3. Daemons (Exec and Java)
> 4. Prompted Input to property.
> 5. XXXXXXX (task name omitted to protect the innocent).
> 
> I have decided to hold off producing the 1.4 Beta until I get some
> indications against this list. Tomorrow, I will be committing a number of
> these outstanding patches (ejbjar will be first).
> 
> Conor
> 
> 
>