----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] vote on general direction, details will be discussed later
> At 08:36 17/4/01 +1000, Conor MacNeill wrote: > >From: "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> * better scripting/notification support so the hooks are available > >> >> * to send notifications at certain times. > >> > > > >-1 > > > >> >> * separate tasks into .tsk jars somehow. (Probably via function - ie > >> >> java tasks, file tasks, ejb tasks). > >> > > > >I change my vote to -0 > > > >> ----------------------------- > >> > >> >> * Ask for a new CVS module for Ant tasks. > >> > > > >-1 > > I believe it is not necessary to establish a separate CVS repository for Ant tasks until such time as they can be easily plugged into Ant. > >> > >> >> * It should be possible to modify details of the actual build > >> >> * (e.g. classpath, used compiler) without the need to change the > >> >> * build specification. > >> > > > >-1 Insufficient detail for this to be a valid requirement. What "details"? We already have this capability. Is this just stating the requirement for the same level of functionality (build.sysclasspath, build.compiler, etc). If this said we shouldn;t use magic properties, then I'd agree. > > You need to give your reasoning for these -1's to hold. > yawn.
