[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/23/2002 07:31:19 AM: > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Diane Holt wrote: > > > > 1.x effort continues on, but only for > > > a) bug fixes > > > b) selected new tasks > > > c) minor additions that make sense for 1.x > > > > I agree completely. That's why I said "maintenance releases of 1.5" rather > > than "bug-fix releases" -- but if you want to introduce significant > > changes (and, personally, I see the ATATT change as significant), then > > it'd probably have to be 1.6. In any case, I definitely think it's time to > > stop spinning our wheels on 2.0 and actually start making it happen. > > I think we were making it happen already. There are few changes > that are proposed, work is well under way - the only question is > if we'll call it 1.6 or 2.0 or 3.0. And the name can only be set > in a release plan - until this happen we just work on 'the main tree' > and all changes are for 'the next major release of ant'.
I don't see how you can say that placing Ant 1.x in 'maintenance mode' is happening already. There is *NO* work at the moment on Ant 2.0 as a separate sanctioned item, there is no CVS repository, etc. Giving it a new name with the same codebase doesn't address the existing documented requirements in a specific way. I see no push underway to take the Ant 2.0 requirements documents and plan for those to be integrated into the code base. I can see a lot of people's favourite small addition to 1.x being added to the tree. > Costin -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Work: http://www.multitask.com.au Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
