James Duncan Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However times they change. My involvement in this project is going > to change substantially over the next few months. Yes, I've tried to > do this before and failed. However, this time *will* be > different.
Good to hear that. > I'm in the process of writing up a proposal and playing with some > source code thoughts for "AntEater -- a Proposal for Ant Core > 2.0". Well, basically we all seem to agree on the big picture of Ant 2.0 - we also seem to agree that Ant2 might need to break with backwards compatibility but provide a solid and stable basis for the future. I understand that you want to go coding on your own and not let us lurk prematurely to make sure things are moving forward - as opposed to being discussed over and over again. You probably have to be a little careful with the term revolution, as you can't expect that everybody here is familiar with the thread on [EMAIL PROTECTED] dating back to January. Revolution always has the connotation of replacing something old and bad, probably killing a few people from the old system (and usually of eating its own children). *I* know this is not the context you intend to use it in, so I have no problem with the term here. > An optional servlet layer which can access build files and would > allow execution of build tasks remotely. This is targeted > squarely at setting up build and test farms on a multitude of > environments. I think this is just a special implementation of > Framework for execution in several modes -- single shot, > repeated, and gui activated. Other options like incremental mode or the continuous integration as described in <http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/continuousIntegration.html> where a change in the repository triggers a rebuild/-test process spring to mind. Now I'm going back to my evolutionary mode and wait until I can get a clear picture of *how* you want to do things (the *what* seems to be more or less agreed upon anyway). Stefan
