ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Loughran <>
Subject Re: [Ant Wiki] Updated: Ant17/Planning
Date Fri, 04 Mar 2005 12:17:35 GMT
Martijn Kruithof wrote:
> wrote:
>>   Date: 2005-03-03T08:55:35
>>   Editor: SteveLoughran
>>   Wiki: Ant Wiki
>>   Page: Ant17/Planning
>>   URL:
>>   no comment
>> Change Log:
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>> @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@
>>  * security hardening. "locking down...or giving the opportunity to 
>> lock down; e.g. secure class loading, working with digital certs, 
>> etc..." Rated as 'like' because of the difficulty.
>>  * Look at all SCM tasks and pull in pending patches for new features. 
>> Find people to test them.

> What are SCM tasks? all optional tasks?

I mean all the optional tasks for different SCM systems -VSS, perforce, 
clearcase, starteam. There are not a few patches to enhance features on 
these, patches submitted by users. But we havent taken them on board yet.

I'd like to look at all the patches for each one and patch them, even 
though though I dont have the ability to test them. Actually, if I build 
up a win98 vmware image with Java1.2, I could put VSS on there too. It 
would be a win98 legacy image.    I may have starteam access @ work. 
What I dont have is clearcase or perforce access.

pause. Perforce has a limited workspace/user version for free:
so I could install and use that as well.

I cant do clearcase, and even if I could get a copy I wouldnt, as I dont 
want to be the full time CC administrator any project that uses the tool 
has. I am still scared of, after three years away from it. I do recall 
that sometimes Ant went patchy on CC, something like <delete> failing; 
we'd have to reboot the OS to make it come back again. Plus different 
case sensitivity logic from a normal windows filesystem. I know some 
people love it, but I am not in that camp. I like to view it as the 
ultimate vision of a distributed file system -one with integrated 
versioning- let down by the fact the implementation is fatally flawed by 
putting too much magic in the filesys, and use of RPC for lan-scoped 
traffic only.

> And could we consider dropping xalan1 somewhen?

Let's have a vote on it.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message