I'm not writing these tasks with the sole purpose of getting them into ant. They are tasks that were developed in order to do anything useful that would help us build/install our product. I figured, why not share some of the work with people who have repeatedly asked for types of tasks.
Why should you give a -1 to something in the optional package? The majority of the stuff in the optional package is only useful to a small handful of people. And it was my understanding that it was for tasks that were useful, but not going to part of the core. And I have repeatedly expressed that I was willing to help out, but those requests seem to always be ignored. On Fri, 2001-09-21 at 18:58, Peter Donald wrote: > -1 for reasons already stated. > > On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 05:26, Matthew Inger wrote: > > I can understand them not wanting that kind of stuff as part > > of the core of ant. But to be so blind as to not even open > > the possibility of including it as part of the optional tasks > > is silly, from my point of view. > > Naturally. > > I heard a lot of people say how silly it is that java doesn't have > pointers/multiple inheritance/<insert some "essential" feature here>. From > the point of view of these people it is silly that these features aren't > added to java because you don't have to use them if you don't want to. > Personally I like that Java is simple and removed all this crapola. > > > It's a bit > > frustrating. I put all this time and effort into developing > > these tasks with generality in mind. I personally am rather > > annoyed that even though i have tried repeatedly, it seems > > impossible to contribute to the project. > > Well spending time writing tasks that are obviously going to be rejected and > then whining when they get rejected is probably not a good way to go about > contributing to the project ... It would be better to understand what the > goals of ant-dev are and then contribute to said goals. > > > I remember a time when software was driven by requirements, > > and more specifically languages/tools were driven the needs > > of it's users. It seems that ANT is a whole different animal > > that is not driven by the needs of the user, but by a vision > > of what it's committer's think it should be. > > and this vision is directly related to user requirements... > > > Frankly, i can't > > understand why it is this way, but as of now there is nothing > > i can do about it. It is obvious that the users need more of > > these types of tasks to be able to effectively achieve their > > goals. And not all users have the time/knowledge to create > > their own tasks. > > Feel free to start a external repository. If it is such an "obvious" need > then you will have a sure-hit project on your hands. You will also be able to > avoid us "thought police". > > > I would think it would be in the best interests of the project > > and it's users to accept useful tasks from anyone who is willing > > to contribute. The only tasks I've seen them accept in the time > > i've been using ant are those related to version control and > > ejb. > > Right. So who would be maintaining, documenting, helping with and evolving > these tasks? Oh thats right ant-dev. It is easy to volunteer other peoples > time - eh? Even more fun would be dealing with N different implementations of > same task/functionality. > > -- > Cheers, > > Pete > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > "Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, > but that is not the reason we are doing it" -- Richard Feynman > -------------------------------------------------------------- -- Matt Inger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Sedona Corporation 455 S. Gulph Road, Suite 300 King of Prussia, PA 19406 (484) 679-2213 "Self-respect - the secure feeling that no one, as yet, is suspicious." -H.L. Mencken
