On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:32, Bruce Atherton wrote: > At 06:57 PM 2/17/02 -0500, Erik Hatcher wrote: > >Just to add more fuel to the fire - even if we were to change this > > behavior, it could not be for Ant 1.x since that would break backwards > > compatibility. > > Now, this is a very good point and a valid reason why one wouldn't want to > change the current behaviour. > > Suppose, though, that Ant 1.x has behaviour that is "incorrect" (as defined > by the majority of committers). How would people feel about correcting the > behaviour UNLESS a "-legacy" flag was added to the command line, in which > case the old behaviour would hold. This is similar to what was discussed > with BuildExceptions on deprecated features, and would be used in the same > way. If you had a build file that relied on the old behaviour, you would > include the flag. Everyone else would get the "correct" behaviour by > default.
It doesn't really matter what the majority of committers thinks. The majority of committers think several things are wrong / inconsistent / bad with ant but thats no reason to break compatability just yet. Ant2 is a clean slate and theres the time to do it if it gets done. -- Cheers, Pete *----------------------------------------------------------* The phrase "computer literate user" really means the person has been hurt so many times that the scar tissue is thick enough so he no longer feels the pain. -- Alan Cooper, The Inmates are Running the Asylum *----------------------------------------------------------* -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
