--- James Duncan Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the interest of making sure that Ant goes on smoothly, I'm going to > bow out, excepting my responsibilities as PMC chair to make sure that > the ASF rules are followed. Something/body has to bend and in the hope > that it will be best for this codebase, I'm going to be the bendee.
Duncan, This doesn't seem like a bend -- it seems like a break. Are your ideas on where Ant2 should go really so diametrically opposed to all of the other proposals that you can't in fact bend to meet them at some point? I'm not implying they aren't, just asking if that's really the case. If that is, then I suppose starting a new build-tool based on those ideas would be the only way to go, but it never seemed that way to me -- then again, I don't have the OO or Java background to really be able to evaluate that. Would it be possible for you to give a short description of what it is about your ideas versus the ideas of others that accounts for the essential differences that would disallow yours and the others from being able to be combined into a single design? Diane ===== ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
