On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:42:11 +0100, Stefan Bodewig
wrote:
> On 2009-12-16, Bruce Atherton wrote:
>
>> To me, only two of the options are seriously being discussed right now:
>
>> 1) the current target-group codebase
>> 2) moving the behaviour of target-group into all targets through a
>>
On 2009-12-17, Bruce Atherton wrote:
> You've convinced me. Just because we can't think of a problem doesn't
> mean that one doesn't exist, and it is a little late in the day to
> start monkeying around if we want to get a new release out the door.
> So Stefan, as far as your poll is concerned,
On 2009-12-16, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> Sorry to hijack your POLL thread Stefan ;)
Thank you for doing so
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.
On 2009-12-16, Bruce Atherton wrote:
> To me, only two of the options are seriously being discussed right now:
> 1) the current target-group codebase
> 2) moving the behaviour of target-group into all targets through a
> marker attribute
Nobody is more surprised by this then myself. Nico
On 2009-12-16, Bruce Atherton wrote:
> Sorry if the previous thread was hijacked by naming issues, but I'm
> not sure I'm ready to vote in a poll yet.
That's why it only is a poll and not a vote 8-)
To be honest I was hoping to get away from the naming issue and to a
discussion of the feature i
You've convinced me. Just because we can't think of a problem doesn't
mean that one doesn't exist, and it is a little late in the day to start
monkeying around if we want to get a new release out the door.
So Stefan, as far as your poll is concerned, count me a +1 for the
current code base.
Dominique Devienne wrote:
This allows to release sooner (1.7.1 is 18 months old), without rushing what is
admittedly a more radical change to Ant's target dependency handling.
Agreed. More broadly, I would like to deflate discussions of this kind a bit. How many users are really clamoring for
2009/12/16 Nicolas Lalevée :
> [...] But targets are all "public"
Except for the tradition of having non-public targets' names start with a dash.
> So it seemed to me quite useless to try to restrict anything.
Restrict? More like caution, that's all. Lets not open Pandora's box
just yet on targe
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:51:27 -0600, Dominique Devienne
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Bruce Atherton
> wrote:
>> Can anyone give a concrete example where there would be a problem
>> treating a
>> target-group as if it were a target?
>
> Can't. But my thinking is that we should ere on
Dominique Devienne wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Bruce Atherton wrote:
Can anyone give a concrete example where there would be a problem treating a
target-group as if it were a target?
Can't. But my thinking is that we should ere on the conservative side
when we introduce su
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Bruce Atherton wrote:
> Can anyone give a concrete example where there would be a problem treating a
> target-group as if it were a target?
Can't. But my thinking is that we should ere on the conservative side
when we introduce such a feature, and that it's easier
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:53:25 -0800, Bruce Atherton
wrote:
> Sorry if the previous thread was hijacked by naming issues, but I'm not
> sure I'm ready to vote in a poll yet.
>
> To me, only two of the options are seriously being discussed right now:
>
> 1) the current target-group codebase
>
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:19:55 +0100, Stefan Bodewig
wrote:
> before we get carried away with naming discussions ...
>
> Currently I don't feel there is consensus of what we'd like to see with
> target-group (if anything at all). The options I see are
>
> * have some sort of composite of target
Sorry if the previous thread was hijacked by naming issues, but I'm not
sure I'm ready to vote in a poll yet.
To me, only two of the options are seriously being discussed right now:
1) the current target-group codebase
2) moving the behaviour of target-group into all targets through a
marker
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> * have some special construct that has a depends list similar to
> target. targets can depend on such a construct and add themselves
> to the depends list (the current code base).
+1, modulo the terminology.
> * allow targets to ad
Hi,
I am fine with the current code base. In fact, I never experienced the
need for target-group(s), but I can imagine myself using them if they
are available.
Regards,
Antoine
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
before we get carried away with naming discussions ...
Currently I don't feel there is con
before we get carried away with naming discussions ...
Currently I don't feel there is consensus of what we'd like to see with
target-group (if anything at all). The options I see are
* have some sort of composite of targets that other targets can add
themselves to
* have some special c
17 matches
Mail list logo
