ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Diane Holt <>
Subject Re: Speaking of deprecation...
Date Sun, 10 Feb 2002 16:53:21 GMT
--- Sam Ruby <> wrote:
> For everybody, there are some tools which are merely installed.  Where
> this line is drawn varies.

Indeed. At one company, I had (almost) an entire OS in source control, and
the build env was a chroot into that OS.

But as Costin pointed out, you can't really control everything, since you
could get into some seriously circular silliness, but you do try
(especially if you're an anal-retentive build engineer :) to control as
much as you can (and document the rest :)

The only reason I pointed out the difference between Costin's "installed"
approach and my source-controlled one was as an explanation as to why
modifying the buildfiles to conform to later versions wasn't a problem for
me (since the versions stay associated with each other via SCM), and that
would account for the difference in our attitude about backward
compatibility (ie., for me it's a non-issue, but for him it's very much an
issue), and I hadn't really been taking that into account.

So, as much as I'm always in favor of cleaning out old cruft (since it's
basically what I do for a living :), I think we probably do need to
consider accommodating those people whose approach to using Ant is like
Costin's, and look instead to Ant2 as the place to try to de-cruft.



Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message