On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 05:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
> [[ moved to general ]]
>
> Costin Manolache wrote:
> > Maybe I'm crazy, but so far I did a lot of the build.xml changes every
> > time a new ant was released, with all the pain of trying (without
> > success ) to make it work with the old version and the new one. I suppose
> > Remy and Craig know what I'm talking about. Given that we use ant for
> > testing, and we already have a lot of ant files - please at least follow
> > the discussions, it'll affect us as well. I don't have the time or energy
> > to try to convince Peter and the others pushing for those changes...
>
> You have to ask yourself: if Peter and others go off into left field, how
> many people will follow?
if *ant-dev* and others go off into left field, how many people will follow?
;)
Answer: None if it sucks or doesn't offer enough bang for buck
> The way I plan to participate in this discussion is through Gump. If Peter
> or Conor ever get to the point where they would like to propose a code base
> for Ant2, I'll start executing and posting trial runs against all of the
> projects that I follow.
Hopefully it will be before a proposal gets made. It would be nice for it to
be a pre-req for proposal adoption that 95% of gump builds clean or similar.
That would be kool.
--
Cheers,
Pete
----------------------------------------------------
"The only way to discover the limits of the possible
is to go beyond them into the impossible."
-Arthur C. Clarke
----------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
