Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: Patch Audit
References: <NDBBIMHCHMPELMBMMFIMMEMNGEAA.conor@cortexebusiness.com.au>
	<01080616290805.00756@helm.realityforge.org>
From: Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org>
Date: 06 Aug 2001 10:45:48 +0200
In-Reply-To: Peter Donald's message of "Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:29:08 +1000"
Message-ID: <m3snf5r2yr.fsf@bodewig.bost.de>
Lines: 45
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Peter Donald <donaldp@apache.org> wrote:

> On Mon,  6 Aug 2001 15:56, Conor MacNeill wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure exactly what "limitations" you are referring to here.
> 
> well IIRC property behaviour from mutable to immutable was a last
> minute change before a release ... I think ... not sure my archives
> have been backed up to CD

I'll help you with my (filed) memory here ;-)

Sam introduced the change and nobody really realized there could be
any backwards compatibility problems - as most people on ant-dev used
the CVS sources (there's not been any release before 1.1) and there
didn't seem to be something to be backwards compatible to.

Right after the release, people told us that we've been wrong.

> I also seem to remember other things like addition of if/unless to
> targets while it occured in the "middle" of a cycle was changed just
> before a release.

Don't think so, they've been added before the first release and didn't
change (until recently).

> Because ants releases occur so infrequently I don't think we should
> just full it chockers each time.

Well, it has become that crowded now, because mayn of the submissions
have been lying around in some queues for a very long time - many of
them could have committed immediately after the 1.3 release.

> I do not think it would be in our best interests to introduce alpha
> quality products into a stable release of ant.

Of course not.

> Instead we should accelerate release cycle of ant and test things
> that way.

I don't see that happen, sorry.  To do that, it would take more people
committed to the 1.x codebase.

Stefan