Peter is currently on vacation, I hope he'll be back soon enough to chime in.
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There will probably be a 1.6.1 release in between to clean up any > issues we discover in 1.6 Maybe we should consequentyl call the first 1.6 release 1.6.0 then? > 2. antlib > > I think this should be in yes. > but I am not familiar with its state yet, I'm not happy with some code details but the overal functionality is there. We should be able to properly document it and see whether we all can agree that this is the antlib functionality we want. If we agree on it, we should put it into 1.6 - changing implementation details would be like fixing bugs IMHO. > nor do I think it has had enough testing Of course not. > Are we planning to antlib Ant's own optional jars? Not in 1.6(.0) IMHO. > 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. Yes. > Comments? The permissions stuff is causing some problems and we need to get the new Launcher tested in a wider audience. Gump doesn't use it, it still uses Main as its entry point and switching it to use Launcher will cause a lot of problems (if we do it right and don't cheat by adding ant.jar to CLASSPATH, that is). Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
