ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Krysalis Centipede, Ruper, Version to Ant
Date Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:49:58 GMT

Christoph Wilhelms wrote, On 06/03/2003 9.57:
>>>At this stage, I think it is appropriate for us to look at 
>>>Ruper. Centipede is, at this stage, something to layer on 
>>>top of Ant and should remain separate, IMHO.
>>
>>I agree that Centipede should remain separate and remain on 
>>top of Ant.
>>I also think that Centiepde can become an Ant subproject in it's own 
>>right, with committers that have access only to the eventual 
>>"ant-centiepde" module.
> 
> 
> I support this idea! I see Centipede on the same level as Antidote!
> Supprojects additionally do not have anything to do with the Ant
> releases or release schedule and bugs/issues!

This is our initial idea.

> Probably Centipede has to be incubated before ;).

Well, I'm in the incubator PMC, and I've been following it since the 
start using Apache methods... I would personally regard it as already 
incubated.

> Should Ruper become a subproject, too?

Dunno, probably it could make sense to make Ruper and Version part of a 
subproject that deals with extra tasks... let's just start in the 
sandbox by working on it and make a more clear idea form out of usage.

> Gump should - IMHO - become an Ant SUBProject, too (Jakarta -> Ant)

Let's keep Gump out for the moment. All Apache committers have access to 
Gump, so it's not really important ATM.

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message