ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Loughran <stev...@iseran.com>
Subject Re: Getting 1.6 out the door
Date Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:13:14 GMT
Conor MacNeill wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I've been a bit busy lately so still catching up on issues. I'd really like to 
> get Ant 1.6 out there. There are a bucket load of bugs that we've fixed and 
> improvements we've made that should get out there, judging by bug reports. 

+1

> 
> What I'd suggest is that soon we branch 1.6 and remove anything that is still 
> settling down. I think we have a few ideas that need to be kicked around 
> before we feel comfortable with them. This work can continue on the HEAD 
> (1.7) while we prepare a release.

+1

> 
> Once we have 1.6 out there I would like to aim for a 1.7 release much sooner 
> than was the case between 1.5 and 1.6. This would pick up those ideas which 
> aren't solid today. There will probably be a 1.6.1 release in between to 
> clean up any issues we discover in 1.6

+1, though I actually think the long lag between 1.5 and 1.6 has let us 
make much progress, and the 1.5.x. release process has worked nicely. 
Because ant is so often integrated into IDEs these days, stability is 
good for our customers.

Also, we can only win one javaworld award a year, right?


> 
> I'd like to get some thoughts on the above and if you are agreeable, what 
> things you think we should hold over in 1.7. As I see it the major issues we 
> have to consider are
> 
> 1. <import>
> 2. antlib
> 3. <macrodef> and <presetdef>
> 
> There are surely others so let me know. 
> 
> My position on these issues is
> 
> 1. <import>
> 
> Go with it as is. I think it is useful and useable without coming up against 
> some of the cases we have discussed. How we address those issues can be 
> tackled later, perhaps with a different mechanism. That is bound up in the 
> whole issue of target visibility and overriding. 
> 
> I'm not sure whether we should provide a simple <include> as well which does 
> no renaming (overrides)?

+1 for import, though the renaming complexity hurts my brain. But then 
for loops that dont have simple increments or decrements hurt my brain, 
which shows how little complexity I can handle.

> 
> 2. antlib
> 
> I think this should be in but I am not familiar with its state yet, nor do I 
> think it has had enough testing - might just be my own need to kick the 
> tyres. Are we planning to antlib Ant's own optional jars? In 1.7 I think we 
> need to look at removing antlibs from the root loader when their dependent 
> jars are not available in ANT_HOME/lib.

We could put it in the betas and see how it goes down; pull it if there 
is trouble. Where is it documented, incidentally?

> 
> 3. <macrodef> and <presetdef>
> 
> These seem to have some issues lately and I suggest we pull these into 1.7

OK.

> 
> Comments?
	
What are we going to do with docs? Stick with the HTML as present, move 
to xdocs (which is currently broken, BTW), ...


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


Mime
View raw message