Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 75533 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2003 11:10:00 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Nov 2003 11:10:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 63825 invoked by uid 500); 26 Nov 2003 11:09:31 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 63789 invoked by uid 500); 26 Nov 2003 11:09:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 63764 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2003 11:09:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bodewig.bost.de) (62.96.16.111) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Nov 2003 11:09:30 -0000 Received: (from bodewig@localhost) by bodewig.bost.de (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hAQB9hv23693; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:09:43 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: bodewig.bost.de: bodewig set sender to bodewig@apache.org using -f To: dev@ant.apache.org Cc: user@ant.apache.org Subject: Re: Ant 1.6 local and macrodef attributes References: <200311260858.07527.peter.reilly@corvil.com> From: Stefan Bodewig Date: 26 Nov 2003 12:09:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: <200311260858.07527.peter.reilly@corvil.com> Message-ID: Lines: 48 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, peter reilly 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. > b) > I send an vote the week before about local properties being s/local properties/macrodef attributes/ > 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 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. > 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. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org