Hi, Thanks for your comments, see below.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Leszek Ciesielski <skol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Ryan Boggs <rmbo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Stefan Bodewig >> <stefan.bode...@freenet.de> wrote: >>> On 2011-10-26, Ryan Boggs wrote: >>> >>>> Now that 0.91 final is out the door, I would like to start discussing >>>> what items to work on in both NAnt/NAntContrib. Attached is an html >>>> file of an outline I put together with thoughts about next steps I >>>> have had for months (I put it in an attachment just in case your email >>>> viewers don't handle html emails). >>> >>> Jumping in at some random point and as somebody who has a strong Ant >>> background but doesn't really know NAnt as good as I should. >>> >>> I can't say much about your choice of SCM. Why do you feel >>> Sourceforge's git offering was insufficient - this is an honest question >>> as I may be thinking about moving XMLUnit to a different SCM myself >>> (currently using svn at Sourceforge). >> It just doesn't feel like there is alot of effort on the repo side in >> terms of code reviews and other tools that sites like github have. >> That being said, I've been toying with the idea about using of setting >> up a git repo on SF to use as a mirror of source. I am also thinking >> about keeping the CVS repo at SF live but readonly for historic >> reasons. >> >> One thing I noticed from experience I have with github.com is that it >> is much easier to share/review code from others than it currently is >> on SF. > > I'm giving a +1 to choosing git and github, in a large part because > those two are popular and well known. And github's pull management is > an awesome feature. :) yup, I concur. > >>> >>> We'll be polling log4net's users about platform support soon. I also >>> feel you are safe to require 2.0 at runtime as long as you keep 1.x as >>> targets. >> I hope so. > > Agree here as well. Although this might (in future) mean quite a large > rewrite of the NAnt API to make use of the generics. Eh, it would but I am thinking that the first step of this part is removing all of the preprocessing statements that separate between .net 1.0 and .net 2.0. Converting the existing code to use features from .net/mono 2.0 >= would probably only be worked on if the gains were significant enough. > >>> >>> When I worked on the log4net release I cursed NAnt's lack of a <mapper> >>> so a big +1 for this. I also miss <macrodef>. Badly. >> I should add <macrodef> too, eh? >>> >>> Have you seen the 1.2.11 release of log4net of about two weeks ago? ;-) >> I have not. I'll have to check that out. >> >> If activity has restarted for log4net like you say, I should take that >> item off my list I just sent out. It was something I have had in mind >> for months prior when log4net activity seemed non-existent. >> >> It took me awhile to get NAnt to use log4net 1.2.10 because of >> sharpcvslib's dependency on log4net 1.2.9. Since I was recently >> granted commit access to that project, I could see if I could upgrade >> the dependency in both projects. > > Updating <nunit2> task will be tricky, especially if you want to keep > it working on Mono as well. Any NAnt deployment that I'm aware of has > resorted to using <exec> instead, because of compatibility problems > between nunit dlls NAnt bundled and those that the project itself > used. Yeah, I am aware of this as I looked into this during 0.91 development. The NUnit API changed drastically between the current version NAnt is using today (2.2 I believe) and the latest release (2.10). Thus, this task was pushed out to avoid further delays of 0.91 final. From what I gathered from NUnit's docs, 2.5.10 should work on both mono and .net now so it shouldn't be a problem from that end (hopefully). > > >From the low priority list: > I'm quite fond of the NAnt website layout :-) And migrating to another > license requires written permission from every past contributor - this > would be a hard task to perform. Also, it might not provide any gain > to end users - development tools don't usually need a permissive > license, as they are not linked into the end product. The reasons you just specified are the reasons why they are considered low priority. Yeah, the site's current layout still works but it could use a face lift to bring it to this decade. Again, low priority. As for the license change, it would be a considerable undertaking and the end payout may not be worth it, on top of the fact that there are higher priorities I would like to address first before sizing up this task. I am in no rush to pursue this at this time but I wanted to keep it up there for future review. Thanks, Ryan > > Regards, > > Leszek 'skolima' Ciesielski > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the > demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. > Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn > about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > nant-developers mailing list > nant-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev _______________________________________________ nant-developers mailing list nant-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
