ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevin Jackson <foamd...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Ant source tree reorganization
Date Mon, 24 May 2010 10:08:09 GMT
Hi,

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Jesse Glick <jesse.glick@oracle.com> wrote:
> Should the Ant source tree (src/main/ and perhaps also src/tests/) be split
> into subtrees?
>
> [ ] No, leave it the way it is - one big tree, using <selector> to
> conditionally compile pieces and route classes to various JARs.
>
> [ ] Yes, split it into subtrees, where each tree maps to an output JAR, may
> have its own classpath, and is compiled completely or not at all.

I'm 50/50 on this - on the one hand having it in separate trees is
both more sensible and *should* make releases easier (reduces reliance
on selectors etc).

On the other hand the fact that the ant build file is complex allows
it to be used as a source of examples of how to deal with a gnarly
build.

>
>
> And while we're at it:
>
> Should ant.jar and ant-nodeps.jar be consolidated?
>
> [ ] No, leave these as two JAR outputs (and two subtrees if the first
> proposal is accepted).
>
> [ x ] Yes, merge them into one ant.jar (and one subtree " " " " " "), to
> include all tasks and types with no linkage-level deps on 3rd-party
> libraries (even if there is an implicit dep on a 3rd-party tool such as
> Perforce), and remove the "Core" vs. "Optional" distinction in the manual.

Absolutely +1 on remove the core vs optional distinction in the manual

Kev

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Mime
View raw message