On Wednesday 26 November 2003 11:09, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > 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.
Well as least not Yet.. > > > b) > > I send an vote the week before about local properties being > > s/local properties/macrodef attributes/ Opps.. > > > 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 Ok, The reason (as I said before) I do not like textual subs is the use of a different notation.., but I can live with it if other people think it is a good thing, > > 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. This is true. > > > 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. Indeed. Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
