On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> > The problem I see is that new versions of Ant can (and have) introduced
> > various incompatibilities with prior versions. This means that all projects
> > have to ensure that they are all using the same version of Ant and that they
> > all upgrade their build projects and make a new release at the same time
> > when a new build of Ant is available. (Or require developers to screw with
> > switching back and forth between different Ant versions manually every time
> > they want to build a different project).
i think that lesson has been learned by the ant developers. ant
development seems to have slowed quite a bit anyway as it's blossomed into
a quite capable tool.
> Another problem is how will users rebuild their distro if Ant isn't
> included in the builds ? So it must be included. And then, it would be a
> bad thing for developpers to build the project with a different Ant
> version than the one that's included in the project.
you could make the same argument about make!
> Also, I don't think this will change the interest people have in Ant.
> How many people have a single make binary on their Linux box and how
> many of them have looked a its internals ?
i use the ant rpm.
i'm not strongly opinionated on this, but i lean towards assuming that
people have ant-1.3 or higher installed on their machines.
- donald
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
