Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Message-ID: <3B569167.545C5E89@anyware-tech.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 09:51:03 +0200
From: Sylvain Wallez <sylvain.wallez@anyware-tech.com>
Organization: Anyware Technologies
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Require developers to install Ant themselves.
References: <85CDFD92C550D311A1A40008C7DFA81ABE4E4E@firewall.altacast.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


"Timm, Sean" a �crit :
> 
> Berin Loritsch [mailto:bloritsch@apache.org] wrote:
> > The current trend among Jakarta projects is to require developers to
> > install ant on
> > their machines locally--and be responsible for current updates.  The
> > reason is that
> > it is becomming increasingly clear that we would otherwise have an
> > installation
> > for EACH repository we have checked out.  This was true of all the
> > Avalon projects
> > until we unified their build systems.
> >
> 
> The problem I see is that new versions of Ant can (and have) introduced
> various incompatibilities with prior versions.  This means that all projects
> have to ensure that they are all using the same version of Ant and that they
> all upgrade their build projects and make a new release at the same time
> when a new build of Ant is available.  (Or require developers to screw with
> switching back and forth between different Ant versions manually every time
> they want to build a different project).
> 
Another problem is how will users rebuild their distro if Ant isn't
included in the builds ? So it must be included. And then, it would be a
bad thing for developpers to build the project with a different Ant
version than the one that's included in the project.

> > This approach has its merits and drawbacks.  The merits are that it
> > raises interest
> > in Ant, and possibly contributing to Ant.  Drawbacks include
> > the loss of
> > simply typing
> > ./build.sh to get the build going.  (Actually, we can keep the build
> > scripts that will simply
> > run the installed Ant).
> >

IMO, this will have no positive effect on Ant : users and developers
will be struggling with the incompatibilities of their respective local
Ant installations and the projects build files.

Also, I don't think this will change the interest people have in Ant.
How many people have a single make binary on their Linux box and how
many of them have looked a its internals ?

BTW, it is very likely (at least it's the case here) that people have
their own Ant installed for their projects.

> 
> If I had a vote, I'd vote -1 (for the reasons indicated).  Hard drive space
> is cheap.  My time is not.  :)
> 
I do have :) So -1.

> - Sean T.
> 

-- 
Sylvain Wallez
Anyware Technologies - http://www.anyware-tech.com

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