on 6/25/00 5:05 PM, Conor MacNeill at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I find that a strange statement. Optional tasks are not assumed to be less > meritorious, IMHO. As I have viewed optional tasks, it is simply assumed > that not every ant user will have the necessary packages installed on their > system for those tasks to compile. So I do view optional tasks as a system > for making tasks available where a package may or may not be present.
I don't think that compilation issues are the only reason to make optional tasks. I *don't* want to see every possible task in the core, just the ones that make sense for 80% of folks. > For me, one of the important issues will become change management of this > code. Will there be restrictions on making changes to this code in the ant > source tree? If not, how will you stop them diverging? If changes are > allowed, how will they be kept in sync with your source tree? This is where just having a jar file with a pointer back to Jason's site would help -- one authoritative source tree that's obvious. .duncan
