Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/09/2002 06:03:54 PM:
[snip] > Project means that it's the build project. > It's not a project descriptor. > The build-project, not the project-descriptor. The repetition doesn't make it more obvious... 'Build-Project'? I can't think of a single time I've heard someone say "I'm just going to update the 'build-project' file". Build file, yes. Ant build file, yes. Project file - never. > It's all about getting understood. > I would just call it <ant> and get along. > Besides, it's really easy to make <ant> and <project> both work, so we > have new syntax and backward compatibility with really no effort. > How's that? Works for me, but again, this isn't my main point. My main point was to try to raise the Ant 2 proposals and see if there was any plan to do anything with them, or if they're simply spinning their metaphorical wheels. So far, it's mainly been "Who needs the proposals? Ant 1 can do anything!". Again, my issue is that there doesn't *seem* to be a drive toward the user requirements (http://jakarta.apache.org/ant/ant2/requested-features.html ), other than luck... > Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Work: http://www.multitask.com.au Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
