> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 6:25 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Proposed Revolution: AntEater (a proposal for Ant Core 2.0) > > > At 01:01 14/11/00 +1100, you wrote: > >Duncan, > > > >Whilst I am happy to have an ant revolution, I wonder whether we > need it. If > >we all agree on a direction with regard to ant 2.0's objectives, > we can move > >forward without a revolution. I'm not saying that we wouldn't want some > >revolutionary code and architecture changes and perhaps some unusual > >instability in ant. > > > >If I look at the revolution in Tomcat, I can see that it is > still a source > >of much tension in the tomcat-dev list. A revolution provides an > opportunity > >to split the community. We should only have that if it is really > necessary. > >If we have a revolution and everyone moves over to work on it, > then why have > >a revolution :-) ? If we have disagreement then yes, a revolution may be > >required. Perhaps we should wait to see whether these is such > disagreement. > >>From the list you posted, I feel there will be broad agreement. > > > >What do you think? > > I think that the reasons for revolution would mainly be because it will be > breaking backwards compatability which is a PITA but necessary > IMHO. As the > the architecture will change significantly then it is unreasonable to > expect end users to use ant with it constatly changing. > > Cheers, > > Pete
Duncan, Will Ant 2.0 break backwards compatibility? Erik
