ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antoine Levy Lambert <>
Subject Re: Propose 1.7.2 Bugfix Release
Date Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:51:23 GMT

I am an ant committer who has not been very active lately :(.

I volunteer to be a release manager for 1.8.0, or maybe co-release 
manager with Stefan.

I do not know what is in the box currently and how mature we are. I 
guess that if the other committers agree I could make a first alpha 
release in the next days. I would have to dive again into 



Adam Batkin wrote:
> On 11/24/2009 05:10 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2009-11-23, Jesse Glick<>  wrote:
>>> I'm not sure backporting bug fixes is worth the effort when there is
>>> nothing in particular holding up a 1.8.0 release that I know of.
>> Time, but that applies to any release.
>> I am planning to volunteer as release manager for 1.8.0 by the end of
>> the year - I had hoped to get to it earlier than that but real life got
>> into the way.
>> FWIW I wouldn't object a 1.7.2 release but completely lack the time to
>> support it.
>>  From my POV the only things missing for a 1.8.0 release are proper
>> documentation of target-group and better documentation on the include
>> (and its difference WRT import) task.  No biggies.  I do have some
>> concerns because of the exec unit tests failures.
> So if people on this list think that 1.8.0 will come out in a 
> reasonable timeframe (and/or at least seriously discuss a timeframe so 
> that people looking for critical fixes can plan appropriately) then I 
> can wait until then.
> Otherwise I'd be interested in branching from 1.7.1, picking a bunch 
> of bugs and merging in those patches. I think the criteria for fixes 
> would have to be something like:
> - Someone cares enough about the particular issue that they say that 
> it should be specifically included
> - Fix already exists
> - Fix is reasonably easy to merge in (i.e. doesn't depend on some 
> major structural change for 1.8.0)
> - Fix is backwards compatible (except in cases where backwards 
> compatible means "totally broken")
> I would be willing to take a stab at it. I'm not an Ant committer (and 
> don't expect to be made one any time soon, given that I just "walked 
> in off the street" and you have no idea who I am) so we'd need to 
> figure out something from a technical perspective. Perhaps I could 
> create a local Mercurial clone of the repository and push changes to 
> that, so that each commit could be viewed individually (rather than a 
> gigantic patch at the end).
> Thanks,
> -Adam Batkin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message