Jason Hunter wrote:
>
> Kuiper, Arnout wrote:
>
> > I agree. Personally I would go even further by having full blown
> > releases. This makes Ant much more usable for the end-user.
>
> +1
>
> It seems obvious to me that Ant should have full blown releases.
> I tell people about Ant all the time, people who have no interest in
> servlets (gasp), and it seems clear they should be able to go get a
> standard build of this nifty build tool. I'd argue ant shouldn't
> necessarily have the same release schedule as Tomcat, since it's already
> being used far outside Tomcat-land. Separate mailing list, separate
> trees, separate releases. (Provided, of course, someone is willing to
> take the time to be release manager.)
>
> Now, what to build Tomcat against? The last stable ant version would
> make sense, it helps Costin, and is what Cocoon and company would do.
> We can have a build-latest.xml that builds Tomcat with the latest Ant
> (for testing and such), and a build.xml that builds with the latest
> stable.
>
> This will mean that the Tomcat tree will need to include an ant##.jar
> representing the latest stable ant. No more bootstrapping. Maybe
> that's a good thing? :-)
>
> Opinions?
Totally +1, but please let's make Ant 1.0, not Ant 3.1 ;-)
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Missed us in Orlando? Make it up with ApacheCON Europe in London!
------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------
