Antoine Levy Lambert wrote:
Do we need a formal vote for this, or should someone just go ahead and
change the code/documentation/tests accordingly ?
This hardly seems controversial enough for a vote. I haven't seen a
single person take a position against suffixlines. I'd suggest the
change
> Matt Benson wrote:
On Jan 8, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Wascally Wabbit wrote:
Hello all--
I've just reviewed the latest Ant trunk (1.8RC1 I believe) to estimate
how much effort it would take to port my extensions (esp. those
dependent on the 1.7x PropertyHelper implementation). For this class
I hav
Hi--
Yea I think I did respond some eons back...basically saying "do whatever
you need to do" and I'll just port (if possible) to the final interface.
Unfortunately, I don't have access to newsgroups at work and don't get
to do much catch up on the weekends so I didn't want to hold up any
active
One more thought below:
On Jan 8, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Wascally Wabbit wrote:
Hello all--
I've just reviewed the latest Ant trunk (1.8RC1 I believe) to estimate
how much effort it would take to port my extensions (esp. those
dependent on the 1.7x PropertyHelper implementation). For this class
I h
And also, looking through mail archives I see that you have
participated somewhat at least in 2007. The thread I found, however,
shows me responding to you, but no return response from you: http://
markmail.org/message/m2v2n2gxoojgy4qt . I guess we should just
proceed from where we are no
Actually we voted to promote [props] from the sandbox last year, and
we'll do a release with/after Ant 1.8.0. :) -Matt
On Jan 8, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Wascally Wabbit wrote:
Hello all--
I've just reviewed the latest Ant trunk (1.8RC1 I believe) to estimate
how much effort it would take to port
On Jan 8, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Wascally Wabbit wrote:
Hello all--
I've just reviewed the latest Ant trunk (1.8RC1 I believe) to estimate
how much effort it would take to port my extensions (esp. those
dependent on the 1.7x PropertyHelper implementation). For this class
I have a few questions abou
Hello all--
I've just reviewed the latest Ant trunk (1.8RC1 I believe) to estimate
how much effort it would take to port my extensions (esp. those
dependent on the 1.7x PropertyHelper implementation). For this class
I have a few questions about current code:
1) No way for an evaluator to test if
Let's just do it--Stefan is never attached to his names, and I agree
that suffix (or postfix) works better in this case.
-Matt
On Jan 8, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Antoine Levy Lambert wrote:
jan.mate...@rzf.fin-nrw.de wrote:
I would vote for SuffixLines as it sounds best matching to the
already e
Le 6 janv. 2010 à 22:09, Antoine Levy Lambert a écrit :
> Hello Jesse,
>
> true, extension-of would have looked nicer together with extension-point.
> Maybe Eclipse uses "extensionOf" too ?
When I mentioned that in Eclipse world they use "extension of", it was talking
about the vocabulary mor
Antoine Levy Lambert wrote:
[X] release this build as ant 1.8.0RC1
[ ] do not release this build
I have played with it for a while in the context of NetBeans (building all IDE sources, and using various Ant-based project types inside the IDE), and have not found any
regressions so far. Checked
I have uploaded a new version of RELEASE-NOTES done with this tool to
http://people.apache.org/~antoine/dist/apache-ant-1.8.0RC1/RELEASE-NOTES-1.8.0RC1.html
So the changes done by Stefan to componentdef notes should be there.
Plus this addresses the complaint about the too many blank lines in t
Uhhm. This makes a bare bones RELEASE-NOTES.html.
This ant task does is just prepend , append
and escape some characters like "<" which would create trouble.
What is missing is creating titles for text followed by and ---
lines, and creating tags where we have stars.
Regard
This is a nice thing.
Antoine
j...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jhm
Date: Thu Jan 7 14:17:18 2010
New Revision: 896889
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=896889&view=rev
Log:
Target for downloading and running Apache RAT (Release Auditing Tool)
Modified:
ant/core/trunk/check.xml
Modifie
jan.mate...@rzf.fin-nrw.de wrote:
I would vote for SuffixLines as it sounds best matching to the already existing
PrefixLines filter (to me).
Agreed,
Do we need a formal vote for this, or should someone just go ahead and
change the code/documentation/tests accordingly ?
Antoine
Jan
Thanks,
Antoine
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2010-01-07, Antoine Levy Lambert wrote:
I do not know as I did not write componentdef. It is mysterious for me
how componentdef works, because I have seen that the Definer class has
a setRestrict method which sets a boolean restrict, but I did not
Ant 1.8.0RC1 is not dependent upon weblogic. The only commercial
dependency left is NetRex.
I read somewhere that we removed the dependencies of ant proper upon
weblogic and starteam, and I removed the corresponding ant-weblogic and
ant-starteam POMS.
Regards,
Antoine
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
This looks cool. Let me try it !
Antoine
jan.mate...@rzf.fin-nrw.de wrote:
I found a Task by the Tomcat team and created a target for discussion ...
Jan
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: j...@apache.org [mailto:j...@apache.org]
Gesendet: Freitag, 8. Januar 2010 10:24
An: notificati
I found a Task by the Tomcat team and created a target for discussion ...
Jan
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: j...@apache.org [mailto:j...@apache.org]
Gesendet: Freitag, 8. Januar 2010 10:24
An: notificati...@ant.apache.org
Betreff: svn commit: r897141 - /ant/core/trunk/docs.xml
Autho
We already have HeadFilter and TailFilter,
also we have PrefixLines.
I would vote for SuffixLines as it sounds best matching to the already existing
PrefixLines filter (to me).
For me the terms (h)eader/(f)ooter/(p)rolog/(e)pilog/suffix(sx)/prefix(px) have
a kind of "directional meaning":
* hea
I added a rat-target in the check.xml and this is run now daily on
Hudson in the job "Ant_Nightly" (with checkstyle, findbugs, javadocs and
distribution).
* JavaDocs
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/Ant/job/Ant_Nightly/javadoc/
* Findbugs
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/An
21 matches
Mail list logo
