ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Hatcher <e...@ehatchersolutions.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE]: Getting 1.6 out the door
Date Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:05:53 GMT
+1

i have no spare cycles in this timeframe (or the rest of this year 
even) to devote to this release unless something is really pressing.

i would have loved the xdocs stuff gain momentum and be used, but by no 
means should it hold up a release.



On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 05:58  AM, Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote:

> Hi,
> I would like to propose a release plan for voting :
> - features included in 1.6 : all the features currently present in head
> - freeze date for 1.6 branch : Monday, September 22 13:00 GMT
> - availability of ANT_16_B1 binaries : within one week of the freeze 
> of the
> branch.
> The exact time will depend on whether I will have trouble with 
> practical
> issues from the build down to the signing of the jar files to the 
> update of
> the web site, of bugzilla, ...
> - release manager : myself
>
> (I hope this is OK, although I am not a PMC member).
>
> So, if this release plan is voted, on Monday, September 22 I will 
> create the
> ANT_16_BRANCH tag.
> The CVS Head will then become ant 1.7alpha
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stefan Bodewig" <bodewig@apache.org>
> To: <dev@ant.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 2:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Getting 1.6 out the door
>
>
>> Peter is currently on vacation, I hope he'll be back soon enough to
>> chime in.
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Conor MacNeill <conor@cortexebusiness.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There will probably be a 1.6.1 release in between to clean up any
>>> issues we discover in 1.6
>>
>> Maybe we should consequentyl call the first 1.6 release 1.6.0 then?
>>
>>> 2. antlib
>>>
>>> I think this should be in
>>
>> yes.
>>
>>> but I am not familiar with its state yet,
>>
>> I'm not happy with some code details but the overal functionality is
>> there.  We should be able to properly document it and see whether we
>> all can agree that this is the antlib functionality we want.  If we
>> agree on it, we should put it into 1.6 - changing implementation
>> details would be like fixing bugs IMHO.
>>
>>> nor do I think it has had enough testing
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
>>> Are we planning to antlib Ant's own optional jars?
>>
>> Not in 1.6(.0) IMHO.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>> The permissions stuff is causing some problems and we need to get the
>> new Launcher tested in a wider audience.  Gump doesn't use it, it
>> still uses Main as its entry point and switching it to use Launcher
>> will cause a lot of problems (if we do it right and don't cheat by
>> adding ant.jar to CLASSPATH, that is).
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


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


Mime
View raw message