Conor MacNeill wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:17 am, Costin Manolache wrote: >> >> Ok - last week we had a proposal, discussions on ant-user and ant-dev, >> and apparently an almost general consensus. >> >> What's next ? Should we wait a bit more before making it official by a >> [VOTE], or just forget the whole thing ? >> > > I will propose a vote tonight. I think we are clear that a move to a 1.2 > based codebase is desirable. Moving to 1.3 or 1.4 is not yet needed as the > features we would make use of are in 1.2 > > What is less clear to me is whether 1.5 branch should be the last 1.1 > codebase or whether it should be 1.6. My preference would be to make it > 1.5 since somethings we need to do (i.e. lcp.bat replacement) are best > done with a URLClassLoader. 1.6 is still a ways off and if we designate it > the last 1.1 release nothing will change for quite a while.
It seems a pretty strong majority would preffer 1.5 as the last 1.1. I haven't seen any good argument on why 1.6 should support 1.1 - if people don't need the 1.2 features and are coding for 1.1, then they can very well use ant1.5 as well :-) Yes, URLClassLoader is the 1.2 feature that matters the most. Costin