ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Cohen" <SCo...@sportvision.com>
Subject RE: Ant 1.6 local and macrodef attributes
Date Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:01:24 GMT
Not a committer but my votes on Jose's ballots:

1) Vote on @{x} as the syntax for textual substitutions
of attributes in <macrodef>.
+1

2) Vote on <local>, must include decision on syntax,
scope (i.e., passing things on <ant> & co., etc.)
I do not think all these have been settle.
0

-----Original Message-----
From:	Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:jalberto@cellectivity.com]
Sent:	Wed 11/26/2003 6:15 AM
To:	Ant Developers List
Cc:	
Subject:	RE: Ant 1.6 local and macrodef attributes
Here is my proposal for you guys to vote on.
Two completely separate votes:

1) Vote on @{x} as the syntax for textual substitutions
of attributes in <macrodef>.

Once this is settle, we can move on releasing <macrodef>
in B3 with its fixed syntax. 

2) Vote on <local>, must include decision on syntax,
scope (i.e., passing things on <ant> & co., etc.)
I do not think all these have been settle.

If (2) is resolved and acepted on 1.6, then Peter
gets most of what he wants, if not, then at least
we can release move on on the rest of ANT.

Jose Alberto

> From: peter reilly [mailto:peter.reilly@corvil.com] 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday 26 November 2003 11:09, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, peter reilly <peter.reilly@corvil.com> wrote:
> > > a)
> > > I sent a vote last week on local properties
> > > and the result was:
> > >                            committers  others (+ votes in 
> bugzilla)
> > >    have local in ant 1.6   2           1 + 6
> > >    not                     0           0
> > >    +0                      1           0
> > >
> > > Based on this and other feedback I think that local does 
> belong in 
> > > ant 1.6.
> >
> > I agree with your opinion (that locals should be there, 
> after all I'm 
> > one of the two +1s), but disagree with the conclusion that this is 
> > going to happen.  2 +1s is simply not enough to make a vote pass.
> >
> > I'm not trying to argue from a procedural standpoint but 
> merely from 
> > the fact that a change like this needs community support - and it 
> > doesn't seem to have it.
> 
> Well as least not Yet..
> >
> > > b)
> > > I send an vote the week before about local properties being
> >
> > s/local properties/macrodef attributes/
> 
> Opps..
> 
> >
> > > implemented by textual replacement or by using local 
> properties. The 
> > > result was:
> > >
> > >                            committers  others
> > >    local properties        2           1
> > >    textual replacement     1           4
> > >    +0                      1           0
> > >
> > > I would like to implement attributes using local properties,
> >
> > -0.8
> 
> Ok, The reason (as I said before) I do not like textual subs 
> is the use of a different notation.., but I can live with it 
> if other people think it is a good thing,
> 
> >
> > most if not all things that could be done when we implement the 
> > attributes as local properties are possible with textual expansion. 
> > Textual expansion enables things that local properties don't.
> 
> This is true.
> 
> >
> > > I propose to commit local properties and implement 
> attributes using 
> > > local properties for the ant 1.6 beta3 release.
> >
> > -1 on both.  Both parts lack committer support.  We could try to 
> > revote or something.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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