Thanks for the explanation Stefan. --- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, M. Sean Gilligan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Putting the Fop task directly in Ant would be > great. I would really > > like to see that happen. I suppose we could get > it in Ant 1.6 if we > > submit it soon. Does anyone know what the > criteria is for inclusion > > as a "Core" or "Optional" task within Ant? What > work would be > > required on our part? > > Actually, it is not too likely to get accepted at > all (I'm an Ant > committer and PMC member, but I'm just speaking for > myself here - some > of it still is speculation). > > Over the past months (no, years) we've spent a lot > of time maintaining > optional tasks and fixing bugs in them, more time > than we spent on > improving Ant itself. As a consequence you'll find > a big reluctance > with Ant developers to accept any new tasks at all.
I see. Perfectly understandable, as you would not want poorly maintained optional tasks ending up degrading Ant's reputation as a build tool. I was not thinking about this when I made the suggestion. > Not having followed the discussion leading up to > this, why would you > want to ship it with Ant rather than FOP? > My (limited world-view) thinking prior to your explanation was that when open-source projects hit The Big Time (tm), they get their own task directly into Ant. So I saw that as a goal for us in FOP 1.0. But with Sean pointing out the FOP version-specific nature of the FOP task, as well as your thanks-but-no-thanks-Ant-is-already-being-bogged-down-with-buggy-optional-tasks explanation have enlightened me on this issue: In FOP, and only in FOP, will the <fop> task be maintained. Thanks, Glen __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
