On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > a) > I sent a vote last week on local properties > and the result was: > committers others (+ votes in bugzilla) > have local in ant 1.6 2 1 + 6 > not 0 0 > +0 1 0 > > Based on this and other feedback I think that local does > belong in ant 1.6.
I agree with your opinion (that locals should be there, after all I'm one of the two +1s), but disagree with the conclusion that this is going to happen. 2 +1s is simply not enough to make a vote pass. I'm not trying to argue from a procedural standpoint but merely from the fact that a change like this needs community support - and it doesn't seem to have it. > b) > I send an vote the week before about local properties being s/local properties/macrodef attributes/ > implemented by textual replacement or by using local properties. > The result was: > > committers others > local properties 2 1 > textual replacement 1 4 > +0 1 0 > > I would like to implement attributes using local properties, -0.8 most if not all things that could be done when we implement the attributes as local properties are possible with textual expansion. Textual expansion enables things that local properties don't. > I propose to commit local properties and implement attributes using > local properties for the ant 1.6 beta3 release. -1 on both. Both parts lack committer support. We could try to revote or something. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
