Nant version of Ivy

2008-08-27 Thread jcarpenteremail-ivy
Is there any ongoing effort to produce a .NET/NAnt version of Ivy?  (I suppose this would be "NIvy".)   I find myself wondering if this can be easily done by using IKVM to convert the Ivy bytecode to IL along with NAnt based clones of the Ivy Ant tasks.   Any guidance on the most practical/expedie

Re: Allowing antlibs to contribute diagnostics & version info

2008-08-27 Thread Jeffrey E Care
Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/27/2008 09:29:02 AM: > > I'm using META-INF/services from the JAR spec, > > would it be possible to somehow use antlib.xml instead? Right now > antlibs don't need to do anything to META-INF at all. I would have preferred this but to my knowledge th

Re: [VOTE] Release AntUnit 1.1 Beta 1

2008-08-27 Thread Peter Reilly
+1 Peter On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > just in case your mail client doesn't like the way our mailing list > manager deals with multipart/signed messages (just like mine, it > simply doesn't see the

Re: svn commit: r688729 - /ant/core/trunk/src/main/org/apache/tools/ant/ComponentHelper.java

2008-08-27 Thread Peter Reilly
yikes! Peter On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:04 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Author: bodewig > Date: Mon Aug 25 07:04:01 2008 > New Revision: 688729 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=688729&view=rev > Log: > reallyput the value into the map. > > Modified: >ant/core/trunk/src/main/org/ap

Re: Allowing antlibs to contribute diagnostics & version info

2008-08-27 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Jeffrey E. Care <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm using META-INF/services from the JAR spec, would it be possible to somehow use antlib.xml instead? Right now antlibs don't need to do anything to META-INF at all. > If someone else is willing to work on the command line stuff

Re: Allowing antlibs to contribute diagnostics & version info

2008-08-27 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Tony Sweeney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why not use '-V' for version, and '-v' for verbose (or vice versa)? Because we already have command line switches for both and we probably don't want to confuse our users by changing the existing CLI. Stefan