> Conor MacNeill wrote: > > > What I'd suggest is that soon we branch 1.6 and remove > > anything that > > is still settling down. I think we have a few ideas that need to be > > kicked around before we feel comfortable with them. This work can > > continue on the HEAD (1.7) while we prepare a release. +1 > > I'd like to get some thoughts on the above and if you are > > agreeable, > > what things you think we should hold over in 1.7. As I see it the > > major issues we have to consider are > > > > 1. <import> > > 2. antlib > > 3. <macrodef> and <presetdef> > > > > There are surely others so let me know. > > > > My position on these issues is > > > > 1. <import> > > > > Go with it as is. I think it is useful and useable without > > coming up > > against some of the cases we have discussed. How we address those > > issues can be tackled later, perhaps with a different > > mechanism. That > > is bound up in the whole issue of target visibility and overriding.
+1 > > I'm not sure whether we should provide a simple <include> as well > > which does no renaming (overrides)? > > > > > > 2. antlib > > > > I think this should be in but I am not familiar with its state yet, > > nor do I think it has had enough testing - might just be my > > own need > > to kick the tyres. Are we planning to antlib Ant's own > > optional jars? > > In 1.7 I think we need to look at removing antlibs from the root > > loader when their dependent jars are not available in ANT_HOME/lib. +1 on antlib being part of 1.6 > > 3. <macrodef> and <presetdef> > > > > These seem to have some issues lately and I suggest we pull > > these into 1.7 +1 if the issues can't be solved easily Greetings, Chris --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
