The stuff that didn't get enough - or negative - votes in the first pass. >> * better scripting/notification support so the hooks are available >> * to send notifications at certain times.
Peter Donald wrote: > Which I would probably -1 unless there was a implementation that was > non-intrusive to core. If this was well thought out and wrappers > were built then this becomes +1 ... Simeon Fitch wrote: > -1 (requirement is too unclear; need to know what the impact of task > developers would be. What are the long term implications?) ----------------------------- >> * separate tasks into .tsk jars somehow. (Probably via function - ie >> java tasks, file tasks, ejb tasks). Conor MacNeill wrote: > -1 - why? I'd probably go for core.task and then the various > optional tasks in categories, say ejb.tsk ----------------------------- >> * Ask for a new CVS module for Ant tasks. Conor MacNeill wrote: > -1 - I think this can be done later. I'd like to get the task > loading in place first and then think about splitting. ----------------------------- >> * It should be possible to modify details of the actual build >> * (e.g. classpath, used compiler) without the need to change the >> * build specification. Conor MacNeill wrote: > -1 - Too vague for me. There is a lot of control already possible. ----------------------------- >> * better subproject handling Conor MacNeill wrote: > -1 without detail
