On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Glen Mazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perfectly understandable, as you would not want poorly maintained
> optional tasks ending up degrading Ant's reputation as a build tool.
It's not only a question of reputation.
One of Ant's biggest burdens is backwards compatibility, a
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 i
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 "Op
>BTW, it may be good to kill two birds with one stone
>and have this task added directly to Apache Ant, as a
>new Optional Task, using what we currently
>have in our own codebase with Sean's improvements,
>and/or modeled after the Xalan task already in
>Ant.
Putting the Fop task directly in Ant
