I'm personally disappointed that Conor put time and effort into Mutant when people weren't willing to evaluate the proposals as a replacement, or that they didn't think it was appropriate.
Seems like a total WOFTAE to me. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Work: http://www.multitask.com.au Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/23/2002 08:13:30 AM: > Beside Costin, I don't remember anyone saying he/she wouldn't want to > consider switching code base entirely (but among the sea of posts, I could > have missed them of course). Most committers admit they haven't even had > time to look in depth at either proposals (now single proposal). Some said > they don't believe in starting from scratch, but seeing is believing, so let > us start by looking at the remaining proposal... The heightened scrutiny > will undoubtedly show its strengths and weaknesses (and whether it's > over-engineered as some proclaimed). Then decide which route is better, i.e. > evolve Ant 1.x or Myrmidon into Ant2. > > And after all, people who worked on the proposals are not complete whackos, > but most likely very talented coders, and well aware of the Ant 1.x code > base. I think their hard work deserves it. --DD > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephane Bailliez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 4:52 PM > To: Ant Developers List > Subject: Re: what I want to see in the next version of ant > > I'm sorry but from what I can see there is no chance that mutant or myrmidon > can be used as the 'base code' without strong consequences on the ant > community. I think Stefan made it quite clear last time. > > For the foundation: ideas: +1. code: -1 > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
