harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nathan Beyer" <ndbe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: ant version support
Date Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:26:07 GMT
It has been a few since we chatted about this. Is there anything holding
back formal push to Ant 1.7.0? Last time I checked it was only DRLVM's build
that had any issues with Ant 1.7.0, so that build will begin to not work on
1.6.5.

I'd like to put a version check in the scripts eventually, just to make it
obvious, but that can be discussed further.

-Nathan

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Nathan Beyer <nbeyer@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Stepan Mishura
> <stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/31/08, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:
> >  > If there is enough support, we can add something like this to the
> >  > top-level scripts to give notice -
> >  >
> >  > <target name="ant-version-check" description="ant version check">
> >  > <fail message="You must use Ant 1.7.0">
> >  > <condition>
> >  > <not>
> >  > <contains string="${ant.version}" substring="1.7.0"/>
> >  > </not>
> >  > </condition>
> >  > </fail>
> >  > </target>
> >  >
> >
> >  Our BTI scripts was not tested with v1.7. So I'm 100% not sure that
> >  moving to the new ANT's version will be smooth. Also currently I'm
> >  refactoring the scripts and need some  to test them with ANT 1.7. Is
> >  it possible to wait with the change and let me to complete refactoring
> >  and testing with 1.7? (I do hope to complete refactoring this week,
> >  and for testing I need ~ 1-2 days). Does this work for you?
> >
> >  Thanks,
> >  Stepan.
>
> Sure, that's fine. Let me know when you're ready. I'll go ahead and
> start updating doc in preparation.
>
> -Nathan
> >
> >
> >
> >  > -Nathan
> >  >
> >  > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >  > > There seem to be all sorts of quirks between Ant v1.6.5 and Ant
> >  > >  v1.7.0. The most recent I just ran into was the DRLVM cunit tests
> >  > >  failing because of the use of 'refid' instead of 'id' in the
> >  > >  'includepath' element [1].
> >  > >
> >  > >  Since v1.7 has been out for quite a while now and most unix and
> linux
> >  > >  variants are shipping that version as the default, I'd like to
> suggest
> >  > >  that we move to v1.7 as the officially supported version. This
> would
> >  > >  essentially be updating all doc (web site, readmes, etc) and
> perhaps a
> >  > >  minor code pause to facilitate the switch.
> >  > >
> >  > >  thoughts?
> >  > >
> >  > >  -Nathan
> >  > >
> >  > >  [1]
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=416920&aid=1626443&group_id=36177
> >  > >
> >  >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message