Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 36433 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2001 12:27:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 29 Nov 2001 12:27:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 20821 invoked by uid 97); 29 Nov 2001 12:27:52 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 20766 invoked by uid 97); 29 Nov 2001 12:27:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 20746 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2001 12:27:50 -0000 Message-ID: <02c501c178d0$b7bc5bb0$0100a8c0@jose> From: "Jose Alberto Fernandez" To: "Ant Developers List" References: Subject: Re: Should ANT2 be ANT3 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:23:55 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N From: "Jon Skeet" > > No one is advocating to sell (or promote it) as ANT2. It is=20 > > just ANT1 Version 2.0. > > ANT2 is a project, a code name if you want.=20 > > We should not confuse that with release numbers. >=20 > 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. 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? 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. Jose Alberto -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: