The stuff that didn't get enough - or negative - votes in the first pass. >> * Unify <available> and <uptodate> into a more general <condition> >> task, support AND/OR of several tests here.
Peter Donald wrote: > Depends on how it is done. If it is done via overloading then -1 if > it is done by creating new tasks for each condition then +1. (Heres > a perfect example where nested tasks work in Ants core). ------------------ >> * Add an <ant> task that will find build files according to a >> * fileset and invokes a common target in them. >> >> * Add a JavaApply task that executes a given class with files from a >> fileset as arguments - similar to <apply>. Peter Donald wrote: > -0 > should be part of preprocessing Stefan Bodewig wrote: > +0, well, we might need to revisit this later - maybe we don't need > it at all as the core (or a preprocessor or whatever) would provide > the functionality. ------------------ >> * Include some more sophisticated loggers with the Ant distribution >> * - especially for sending emails. Make the existing one more >> * flexible (stylesheet used by XmlLogger). Conor MacNeill wrote: > +1 - This may affect the core if this is going to be specified in > the build file and require the email message to be defined. More > sophisticated loggers require more sophisticated configuration than > command line options. So, does that mean I should have said -1? ------------------ >> * make the default logger's output clear, informative, and terse. Conor MacNeill wrote: > -1 - I think it is OK as it is. > > Compare these two > http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/gump/latest/bootstrap-ant.html > http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/gump/latest/jakarta-tomcat.html ------------------ >> * add an attribute to <property> to read in an entire file as the >> value of a property. Peter Donald wrote: > -1. One thing I would like to see is property/available and other similar > tasks simplified by not overiding the tasks. Instead new tasks like > > <file-property ... /> > <data-property ... /> > <load-properties ... /> ------------------ >> * make PATH handling consistent. Every task that has a PATH >> * attribute must also accept references to PATHs. Stefan Bodewig wrote: > -1, should be moved to "guidelines for task writers" IMHO - unless > we could simply enforce this from the core, in which case it doesn't > belong here either
