+1 to a separate ant2 repository. I don't care what the initial code base is. My preference would be for the current ant 1.x source, but I'd be happy with anything.
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:47, Craeg Strong wrote: > Hello: > > I think everyone has made some good points. It seems to me that the > best way to move > forward is to create a seperate CVS area for Ant 2 efforts. I think > there is absolutely > nothing wrong with "a lot of people's favorite small addition to 1.x" > and I think that should > continue (subject to previously mentioned guidelines) in the 1.x CVS area. > > Meanwhile, work can begin in a SEPARATE area on Ant 2. I'm also not > terribly concerned > with what gets imported as the base for the Ant 2 effort, because I am > quite sure that it will > get "refactored mercilessly" multiple times before Ant 2 is anywhere > close its first public > release. Such refactorings would never be possible in the 1.x code > base, and that is (part of) > the point. It seems that the majority of people on the list want to > start (ant2) with some > snapshot of the 1.x base code, rather than a proposal. Fine. > > My main point is, can we pleeze establish a _separate_ ant2 CVS area so > we can get moving > on this? I would even go further-- we should create an ant2-dev mailing > list so that ant2 discussions > can be had separately from the folks who want to proceed with their > "favorite small addition to 1.x" > Of course, many, or perhaps most developers will want to subscribe to > _both_ ant-dev and ant2-dev, > but it will allow developers to be more selective about the email > traffic they receive... (hint hint) > > Again, I stress that this model has been used quite successfully on many > open source projects. > I believe they call it an "internal fork"? Natural and normal for a > project in Ant's stage of development... > > $0.02, > > --Craeg > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/23/2002 07:31:19 AM: > >>>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 -- Adam -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
