ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Murdoch <adammurd...@apache.org>
Subject Re: what I want to see in the next version of ant
Date Tue, 23 Jul 2002 21:36:13 GMT

+1 to a separate ant2 repository.

I don't care what the initial code base is.  My preference would be for the 
current ant 1.x source, but I'd be happy with anything.

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:47, Craeg Strong wrote:
> Hello:
>
> I think everyone has made some good points.   It seems to me that the
> best way to move
> forward is to create a seperate CVS area for Ant 2 efforts.   I think
> there is absolutely
> nothing wrong with "a lot of people's favorite small addition to 1.x"
> and I think that should
> continue (subject to previously mentioned guidelines) in the 1.x CVS area.
>
> Meanwhile, work can begin in a SEPARATE area on Ant 2.   I'm also not
> terribly concerned
> with what gets imported as the base for the Ant 2 effort, because I am
> quite sure that it will
> get "refactored mercilessly" multiple times before Ant 2 is anywhere
> close its first public
> release.  Such refactorings would never be possible in the 1.x code
> base, and that is (part of)
> the point.  It seems that the majority of people on the list want to
> start (ant2) with some
> snapshot of the 1.x base code, rather than a proposal.  Fine.
>
> My main point is, can we pleeze establish a _separate_  ant2 CVS area so
> we can get moving
> on this?  I would even go further-- we should create an ant2-dev mailing
> list so that ant2 discussions
> can be had separately from the folks who want to proceed with their
> "favorite small addition to 1.x"
> Of course, many, or perhaps most developers will want to subscribe to
> _both_ ant-dev and ant2-dev,
> but it will allow developers to be more selective about the email
> traffic they receive... (hint hint)
>
> Again, I stress that this model has been used quite successfully on many
> open source projects.
> I believe they call it an "internal fork"?  Natural and normal for a
> project in Ant's stage of development...
>
> $0.02,
>
> --Craeg
>
> dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> >costinm@covalent.net wrote on 07/23/2002 07:31:19 AM:
> >>>In any case, I definitely think it's time to
> >>>
> >>>stop spinning our wheels on 2.0 and actually start making it happen.
> >>
> >>I think we were making it happen already. There are few changes
> >>that are proposed, work is well under way - the only question is
> >>if we'll call it 1.6 or 2.0 or 3.0. And the name can only be set
> >>in a release plan - until this happen we just work on 'the main tree'
> >>and all changes are for 'the next major release of ant'.
> >
> >I don't see how you can say that placing Ant 1.x in 'maintenance mode' is
> >happening already. There is *NO* work at the moment on Ant 2.0 as a
> >separate sanctioned item, there is no CVS repository, etc.
> >
> >Giving it a new name with the same codebase doesn't address the existing
> >documented requirements in a specific way. I see no push underway to take
> >the Ant 2.0 requirements documents and plan for those to be integrated
> >into the code base. I can see a lot of people's favourite small addition
> >to 1.x being added to the tree.
> >
> >>Costin
> >
> >--
> >dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
> >Work:      http://www.multitask.com.au
> >Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers

-- 
Adam

--
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