What I'd like to do would be to leverage the <defineset> and <libset> stuff of <cc> for .net defines and references -there is no point reinventing that stuff. But to do that, we'd have to pull the <cc> codebase in to ant's CVS tree. Do you think it is time? I do.
+1 on bring several of the ant-contib pieces over. I've now started using <propertycopy> in my builds - its quite handy. And <osfamily> makes sense to bring over without there being too many battles either, right?
This is a bit off-topic for pulling <cc> in, but back to the .NET stuff. Since there is already NAnt and NDoc, it seems a bit much for us in Java-land to reinvent the wheel. If their projects are good enough for .NET development, doesn't it make sense for us to deprecate what we have in that area and refer to them? Ant can call their build and they could call us when projects need to cross those boundaries.
Are there technical reasons why Ant's .NET stuff is superior or does more than what NAnt does? I'm open to more discussion on this, and not against Ant having .NET stuff (I see that Avalon has a C# port in the works too).
Erik
p.s. not to start a flame war or anything, but i've come to the realization recently that perhaps open-source development is going to be bad (or at least give Sun tougher challenges) in the near future - C# ports of all of Jakarta and other Java projects would make Java-to-.NET developer migration a whole lot easier. Reply-to: me, don't clutter the list with replies on this flame-bait :))
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
