> -----Original Message----- > From: Costin Manolache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If nobody -1 it, I would like to use ../build/ant for ant build and > ../dist/ant for ant > distribution. +1 for me. > A third proposal - let's tag the workspace ( Apr. 4 or > anything ) - it > is important to have a "known" ant that is used to build > other projects. > If possible, please don't change the ant's build.xml with the > latest and > greatest features - right now it works, and if it's not > broken don't fix > it. You can ( and should ) create test cases for any change, but > build.xml is not intended as a test suite. > > It would also be nice to not change ant behavior or remove features - > people are using ant as a build tool. Ant has a very clear design that > allows you to desing new tags without changing existing ones, and to > specify what implementation you want for a certain tag. Just extend or > create new tags based on the tags you feel are "wrong", and > use them in > your own build.xml. I would rather use a stupid but stable > ant, instead > of a very smart ant that changes every day. I agree. Personally I would go even further by having full blown releases. This makes Ant much more usable for the end-user. When you are a regular user, use the released version. If you like living on or over the edge, use the CVS version. Working with releases also gives a more clearer target to work towards. -- Arnout
