ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Loughran" <stev...@iseran.com>
Subject Re: Bug fixes to 1.4.1
Date Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:19:48 GMT

----- Original Message -----
From: "stephan beal" <stephan@wanderinghorse.net>
To: "Ant Developers List" <ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>; "Dominique Devienne"
<DDevienne@lgc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Bug fixes to 1.4.1


> On Tuesday 26 March 2002 19:20 pm, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > This may sound like a very silly question to some I'm sure, but why
aren't
> > some of the bugs reported against 1.4.1 corrected, and a 1.4.2 or
1.4.1.p1
> > made available? How often someone writes "yep, it's fixed or already
fixed
> > in CVS and/or 1.5a". I believe that simple bug fixes to existing tasks
or
> > docs should also go against 1.4.1. Most of us need or have no choice but
to
> > use released versions of ANT for various reasons. Fixing the latest
> > released version (1.4.1) to some extend until the 1.5 becomes prime time
> > makes sense to me.

1.5 should work almost perfectly well against any existing build. People who
d/l and use 1.5 not only get their bugs fixed, they help to find the next
generation of bugs in the new code and so improve code quality of all
enhancements.

> >
> > I've just fell into the source="1.4" bug of <javac> again (the attribute
is
> > ignored!) with 1.4.1 official, and thought about asking. --DD
>
> In the case that none of the dev team would like to deal with this "old
> stuff", i still have a "working interest" in 1.4, and would be honored to
> take this on.

Because then you have branched software; version merging grief, etc. You
also need to deal with bug reports differently; is a bug reported against
1.4.3 found in the 1.5 head of the tree, where do you patch it, etc.
Branching massively increases development and supprt overhead, compared to
making changes, both fixes and enhancements at the head of the tree.There is
also the 'when is it an enhancement, when is it a fix' issue. The cited
example 'source=1.4' sounds like a feature to me, not a defect fix.

> And, i *promise*, none of my patches would sneek in without official
devteam
> approval ;). i could work out of a separate CVS tree, if that made people
> more comfortable.

I dont see what we gain from having a branch. Better to focus on getting
ant1.5 out, now that it has been six months since 1.4

Also, given that mutant and myrmidion are exploring ant futures, you can
view ant1.5 as the maintentance release on the existing codebase, while 4+
people work on designs for a cleaner foundation.

-steve



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message