Conor MacNeill wrote: > What I'd suggest is that soon we branch 1.6 and remove anything that is > still settling down. I think we have a few ideas that need to be kicked > around before we feel comfortable with them. This work can continue on the > HEAD (1.7) while we prepare a release.
+1 > I'd like to get some thoughts on the above and if you are agreeable, what > things you think we should hold over in 1.7. As I see it the major issues > we have to consider are > > 1. <import> > 2. antlib > 3. <macrodef> and <presetdef> > > There are surely others so let me know. > > My position on these issues is > > 1. <import> > > Go with it as is. I think it is useful and useable without coming up > against some of the cases we have discussed. How we address those issues > can be tackled later, perhaps with a different mechanism. That is bound up > in the whole issue of target visibility and overriding. +1 > I'm not sure whether we should provide a simple <include> as well which > does no renaming (overrides)? > 2. antlib > > I think this should be in but I am not familiar with its state yet, nor do > I think it has had enough testing - might just be my own need to kick the > tyres. Are we planning to antlib Ant's own optional jars? In 1.7 I think > we need to look at removing antlibs from the root loader when their > dependent jars are not available in ANT_HOME/lib. +0 > 3. <macrodef> and <presetdef> > > These seem to have some issues lately and I suggest we pull these into 1.7 +1 for 1.7 ( +0 for 1.6 ) Costin > Comments? > > Conor --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
