Yep, sure. You don't need a property, btw., there is a condition for that --
<antversion atleast="1.8.2" />
wrap it into a fail and you're set.
D.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Dawid Weiss
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Definitely not the early ones because they were buggy. 1.8.3 seems
>> relatively fresh (February 29th, 2012), so I'd say 1.8.2 (2010-12-20)?
>> This is a long delay from 1.8.2 to 1.8.3... just peeked at the rel.
>> notes and there are issues that could affect us:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48789
>>
>> I also don't object to just saying 1.8.3 is the minimum required
>> version. It's the trunk after all -- it'll be a month or two (ehm)
>> before it is released so 1.8.3 will be a de-facto standard?
>>
>
> Well, for whatever version we require, i actually think if there were
> serious bugs in 1.8.x, we should consider enforcing that we actually
> have that minimal version (ant exposes a property for that). I think
> its better to say 'you have the wrong version of ant, its not gonna
> work' than to give a strange permgen/oom/wrong
> packaging/miscompile/... of course if the bugs only affect some
> special thing (particularly an undocumented task like a hudson one),
> then maybe we don't need to go that far.
>
>
>
> --
> lucidimagination.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
