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
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, M. Sean Gilligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The advantages to shipping with Ant are that it would become more of
> a "standard" and get more exposure and usage.
Sure. In the early days Ant used to absorb tasks from each and every
problem domain to get more exposure itself.
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
>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 the problem.
> In particula
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
