A while ago I offered to be part of the Ant2 implementation team - looking back, this was a silly move. I have a fair amount of free time, but it's not often in nice big blocks where I can really do the design/initial coding needed for Ant2. Apologies for that.
However, I do often have half an hour at a time, or so. I'd be more than willing to try to go through every class in Ant (or at least those I can easily compile - I'm happy to put a few optional libraries here and there, but nothing too elaborate!) and check for fields and methods which aren't commented - work out what it looks like they do, and document them. Two questions: 1) Do people think this would actually be helpful? I suspect that a lot of the time it would be trivial stuff - stuff where the method name isn't *quite* clear enough, but 10 seconds of looking at the code makes it obvious what's intended. Is it worth spending that extra time (not only mine, but whoever has to look at the many patches which would be generated by doing this) just to avoid people having to look at the source? My feeling is that it is, but I can see that won't be universal :) 2) Which version should I do this on? If I attack the current CVS main tree, a lot of the work in Ant2 will be missed - but if I attack the proposal tree, I suspect a lot of things are prone to change there anyway. Any thoughts welcome. It'll be a short while before I start it anyway - I'm currently fighting with Eclipse's CVS handling to make it easy to generate patches etc :( Jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
