ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From d...@multitask.com.au
Subject Re: what I want to see in the next version of ant
Date Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:11:46 GMT
costinm@covalent.net wrote on 07/23/2002 07:31:19 AM:

> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Diane Holt wrote:
> 
> > > 1.x effort continues on, but only for
> > >   a) bug fixes
> > >   b) selected new tasks
> > >   c) minor additions that make sense for 1.x
> > 
> > I agree completely. That's why I said "maintenance releases of 1.5" 
rather
> > than "bug-fix releases" -- but if you want to introduce significant
> > changes (and, personally, I see the ATATT change as significant), then
> > it'd probably have to be 1.6. 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



Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message