> From: "Jon Skeet" <jon.skeet@peramon.com>
>
> > > No one is advocating to sell (or promote it) as ANT2. It is
> > > just ANT1 Version 2.0.
> > > ANT2 is a project, a code name if you want.
> > > We should not confuse that with release numbers.
> >
> > Does that mean you're happy with Sun's naming of "Java2" as meaning
> > "JDK1.2 or higher"? It's caused a lot of confusion to others, and I
> > think we'd see similar confusion if ANT2 isn't Ant V2.x.
>
> So, what you are saying is that: had we refered to ANT2 as
> "NEW ANT" or
> "ANT-NG(next generation)" or "FIRE-ANT" or whatever else, it
> would had been fine, but just because more than a year ago we
> started using ANT2 as the moniker
> for "the new ANT architecture" then we are now stuck on 1.x
> until we deliver that.
Pretty much, yes. Then again, I'm glad it's called ANT2 anyway. I think
major version changes should be just that *major*. I don't see anything
wrong with sticking with 1.x for the moment.
> Does this really makes any sense? What is there for advance
> research, do you mean to say that an Apache group cannot think
> on two or three product generations for now?
> Are we condemed to only look one major release ahead?
Well, they can do research with random codenames, of course, but I think
when things start becoming more concrete, it makes sense to assign a
version number.
> If the arguments were that the "Rearchitected ANT" can be out
> soon and that the list is ready to make it happen quickly, then I
> may agree or disagree but understand the possition, but to object
> because of what in escense is PR, I really really think it is sad.
I'm objecting because of *confusion*, not because of PR. I've seen how
much confusion the Java2/1.2 issue has caused, and I'd rather avoid it
with Ant.
All this is just random opinion though, and should be taken with a
healthy dose of not-caring-less :)
Jon
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
|