"Magesh Umasankar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't think Ant should sacrifice backwards > compatibility - in such cases, Ant Dev's approach
Is compatibility really sacrificed here? Sure, the change should be documented like any other change, but can people really expect a new version of a tool like ant to behave in exactly the same way as the previous version? > Wrongly assuming decisions like these have no negative > costs, may impact existing buildomations in a variety of > ways. Automatically retaining questionable decisions because of an unwillingness to break compatibility reduces the overall effectiveness of the tool. But I should probably ask: why was the decision originally made to make the default "no-debug"? -- joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
