Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
From: peter reilly <peter.reilly@corvil.com>
Organization: corvil
To: Ant Developers List <dev@ant.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Ant 1.6 local and macrodef attributes
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:24:43 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
References: <200311260858.07527.peter.reilly@corvil.com>
 <m3ptffe688.fsf@bodewig.bost.de>
In-Reply-To: <m3ptffe688.fsf@bodewig.bost.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200311261124.43107.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