On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Stepan Mishura
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/31/08, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If there is enough support, we can add something like this to the
> > top-level scripts to give notice -
> >
> > <target name="ant-version-check" description="ant version check">
> > <fail message="You must use Ant 1.7.0">
> > <condition>
> > <not>
> > <contains string="${ant.version}" substring="1.7.0"/>
> > </not>
> > </condition>
> > </fail>
> > </target>
> >
>
> Our BTI scripts was not tested with v1.7. So I'm 100% not sure that
> moving to the new ANT's version will be smooth. Also currently I'm
> refactoring the scripts and need some to test them with ANT 1.7. Is
> it possible to wait with the change and let me to complete refactoring
> and testing with 1.7? (I do hope to complete refactoring this week,
> and for testing I need ~ 1-2 days). Does this work for you?
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan.
Sure, that's fine. Let me know when you're ready. I'll go ahead and
start updating doc in preparation.
-Nathan
>
>
>
> > -Nathan
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > There seem to be all sorts of quirks between Ant v1.6.5 and Ant
> > > v1.7.0. The most recent I just ran into was the DRLVM cunit tests
> > > failing because of the use of 'refid' instead of 'id' in the
> > > 'includepath' element [1].
> > >
> > > Since v1.7 has been out for quite a while now and most unix and linux
> > > variants are shipping that version as the default, I'd like to suggest
> > > that we move to v1.7 as the officially supported version. This would
> > > essentially be updating all doc (web site, readmes, etc) and perhaps a
> > > minor code pause to facilitate the switch.
> > >
> > > thoughts?
> > >
> > > -Nathan
> > >
> > > [1]
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=416920&aid=1626443&group_id=36177
> > >
> >
>
