DO NOT REPLY [Bug 34867] - Deploying an ear to weblogic seems to break junitreport only in ant 1.6.3

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35437] - Ant 1.6.3 adds unusable -source 1.3 when specifying target="1.3" and extjavac JDK 1.3 when running under JDK 1.5

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35437] New: - Ant 1.6.3 adds unusable -source 1.3 when specifying target="1.3" and extjavac JDK 1.3 when running under JDK 1.5

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35437 Summary: Ant 1.6.3 adds unusable -source 1.3 when specifying target="1.3" and extjavac JDK 1.3 when running under JDK 1.5 Product: Ant Version: 1.6.3 Platform: All

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 34722] - Cenqua clover failure's with ant 1.6.3

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 34867] New: - Deploying an ear to weblogic seems to break junitreport only in ant 1.6.3

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34867 Summary: Deploying an ear to weblogic seems to break junitreport only in ant 1.6.3 Product: Ant Version: 1.6.3 Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: b

Re: ant 1.6.3 breakage of cpptasks

On Tue, 10 May 2005, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 9 May 2005, Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I have had two reports in log4cxx of compile failures that seem to >> be caused by changes in Ant 1.6.3, >> http://mar

Re: ant 1.6.3 breakage of cpptasks

On Mon, 9 May 2005, Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have had two reports in log4cxx of compile failures that seem to > be caused by changes in Ant 1.6.3, > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4cxx-user&m=111522597306665&w=2 Bug in DirectoryScanner that I'

ant 1.6.3 breakage of cpptasks

I have had two reports in log4cxx of compile failures that seem to be caused by changes in Ant 1.6.3, http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4cxx-user&m=111522597306665&w=2 and http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4cxx-user&m=111565145332704&w=2. It is likely that these are affected

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release

Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: Do we want to release Ant 1.6.3 on Thursday, April 28th ? Yes [ x] No [ ] Cheers, Antoine Peter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED

RE: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release

> > Do we want to release Ant 1.6.3 on Thursday, April 28th ? > > Yes [X] > No [ ] > Jose Alberto - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release

> Do we want to release Ant 1.6.3 on Thursday, April 28th ? Yes Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release

Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: Do we want to release Ant 1.6.3 on Thursday, April 28th ? Yes [+1 ] No [ ] Steve - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release

> From: Antoine Levy-Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Do we want to release Ant 1.6.3 on Thursday, April 28th ? > > Yes [X] > No [ ] --DD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additiona

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release

Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: Do we want to release Ant 1.6.3 on Thursday, April 28th ? Yes [X ] No [ ] Kev - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release

--- Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do we want to release Ant 1.6.3 on Thursday, April > 28th ? > > Yes [X] > No [ ] > -Matt > Cheers, > > Antoine > > > > -

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release

Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: Do we want to release Ant 1.6.3 on Thursday, April 28th ? Yes [X] No [ ] Martijn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release

Do we want to release Ant 1.6.3 on Thursday, April 28th ? Yes [ ] No [ ] Cheers, Antoine - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ant 1.6.3 release

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I did not see yet any specific ant 1.6.3beta1 bugs. There's been one report on the user list, but I'm not sure it's valid. > I was thinking of proposing a release on Thursday, April 28th. works for me (with no additional bet

Ant 1.6.3 release

Hello, I did not see yet any specific ant 1.6.3beta1 bugs. Can we already start discussing about a 1.6.3 release ? Or do we need a second beta ? I was thinking of proposing a release on Thursday, April 28th. Cheers, Antoine - To un

[RESULT] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate - new date proposed : March 31st - has passed

Hello, I have seen that we have 6+1s for the release candidate, and in fact I am starting work to produce it now. Cheers, Antoine - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate - new date proposed : March 31st

Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: Since several committers seemed to want a bit more time for fixes, let's vote for Ant 1.6.3 rc1 on Thursday, March 31st. +1 -J. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] x22801 netbeans.org ant.apache.org if I had known it was harmless I would have killed it m

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate - new date proposed : March 31st

Martijn Kruithof wrote: Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: Since several committers seemed to want a bit more time for fixes, let's vote for Ant 1.6.3 rc1 on Thursday, March 31st. (and cancel the previous vote of course) [ ] Yes [ ] No Let me begin with my +1 I'm +1 too, hopefully this re

Re: AW: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate - new date proposed : Marc h 31st

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since several committers seemed to want a bit more time for fixes, let's vote for Ant 1.6.3 rc1 on Thursday, March 31st. (and cancel the previous vote of course) [ ] Yes [ ] No Let me begin with my +1 +1 Jan +1

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > JSPC needs to be deprecated; it wont work against 5.x, people should > use tomcat's own. Which we already tell them in the manual - nevertheless, there will be people who still use Tomcat 4.x (me, for example, but I don't use jspc).

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Should we wait a few more days? Maybe yes. Of the 260+ reports that are real bug reports (not enhancement requests), there are > 20 reports against optional SCM tasks nobody of us can test, > 20 reports against J2

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate - new date proposed : March 31st

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Kev Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm going to check spelling of all the html docs over the next > couple of days, I think there already is an open bug report with ispell results ... > I know that there are a couple of doc patches in bugzilla, could we > roll them out

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate - new date proposed : March 31st

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since several committers seemed to want a bit more time for fixes, > let's vote for Ant 1.6.3 rc1 on Thursday, March 31st. +1 Stefan -

AW: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate - new date proposed : Marc h 31st

> Since several committers seemed to want a bit more time for > fixes, let's > vote for > Ant 1.6.3 rc1 on Thursday, March 31st. > (and cancel the previous vote of course) > > [ ] Yes > [ ] No > > Let me begin with my +1 +1 Jan

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate - new date proposed : March 31st

Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: Since several committers seemed to want a bit more time for fixes, let's vote for Ant 1.6.3 rc1 on Thursday, March 31st. (and cancel the previous vote of course) +1 I'm going to check spelling of all the html docs over the next couple of days, I know that t

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate - new date proposed : March 31st

Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: Since several committers seemed to want a bit more time for fixes, let's vote for Ant 1.6.3 rc1 on Thursday, March 31st. (and cancel the previous vote of course) [X] Yes [ ] No Let me begin with my +1 +1

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate - new date proposed : March 31st

Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: Since several committers seemed to want a bit more time for fixes, let's vote for Ant 1.6.3 rc1 on Thursday, March 31st. (and cancel the previous vote of course) [ ] Yes [ ] No Let me begin with my +1 +1 Ma

[VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate - new date proposed : March 31st

Since several committers seemed to want a bit more time for fixes, let's vote for Ant 1.6.3 rc1 on Thursday, March 31st. (and cancel the previous vote of course) [ ] Yes [ ] No Let me begin with my +1 Cheers, Antoine ---

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

so +1 for 1.6.3 RC1 on Wednesday, March 23d from me then. Peter Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Do we want to make a ant 1.6.3 RC1 on Wednesday, March 23d ? I somehow managed to miss that you are *not* talking about to

AW: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

z 2005 13:24 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Do we want to make a ant 1.6.3 RC1 on Wednesday, March 23d ? > > I somehow managed to miss

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do we want to make a ant 1.6.3 RC1 on Wednesday, March 23d ? I somehow managed to miss that you are *not* talking about tomorrow. Next week would work for me, I don't think I'll be allowed to code on East

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

Should we wait a few more days? Maybe yes. I do have a few bug assigned to me that I want to fix, basically javadoc and cvstagdiff. The later will involve adding a new class and has the potential to cause trouble, so I'd feel more comfortable if we waited two more days (either I get things done un

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

As a user of Ant My Vote is +1 to release new version On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:23:37 +0100, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Should we wait a few more days? > > Maybe yes. > > I do have a few bug assigned to me that I

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Should we wait a few more days? Maybe yes. I do have a few bug assigned to me that I want to fix, basically javadoc and cvstagdiff. The later will involve adding a new class and has the potential to cause trouble, so I'd feel more c

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

> Should we wait a few more days? Fine with me. Do we want to do it beginning of April ? Antoine > > Peter > Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > >On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>Do w

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

Should we wait a few more days? Peter Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Do we want to make a ant 1.6.3 RC1 on Wednesday, March 23d ? I won't be ready with the bugs I intend to fix by then, but I can do so even after th

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: Hi, Do we want to make a ant 1.6.3 RC1 on Wednesday, March 23d ? +1 I think I'd like to backport the RMI fix for Java1.5 in; I cant think of any other Java1.5-breaks-us patch that needs to go over.

Re: AW: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

Kev Jackson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 (means yes) I thought only committers could +1 something on a vote? Ok, +1 if I can/makes any difference Kev Everyone has a vote. You dont get a veto, but if enough people without commit access voted -1 (maybe even +1) to something, it'd be an ef

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do we want to make a ant 1.6.3 RC1 on Wednesday, March 23d ? I won't be ready with the bugs I intend to fix by then, but I can do so even after the RC, right? Just announce when you need a stable repo s

AW: AW: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

che Nachricht- > Von: Kev Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet am: Dienstag, 15. März 2005 08:34 > An: Ant Developers List > Betreff: Re: AW: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >+1 (means yes) > > > > > >

Re: AW: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 (means yes) I thought only committers could +1 something on a vote? Ok, +1 if I can/makes any difference Kev - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTEC

AW: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

+1 (means yes) Jan > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: Kev Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet am: Dienstag, 15. März 2005 06:53 > An: Ant Developers List > Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate > > > > > > Do we want to make a ant

Re: [VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

Do we want to make a ant 1.6.3 RC1 on Wednesday, March 23d ? [x ] Yes (if we've addressed all the bugs/issues that we can) [ ] No - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[VOTE] Ant 1.6.3 release candidate

Hi, Do we want to make a ant 1.6.3 RC1 on Wednesday, March 23d ? [ ] Yes [ ] No Cheers, Antoine - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ant 1.6.3 release?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Jesse Glick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Reilly wrote: >> Is there anything that needs to be put into the 1.6 branch to allow >> a 1.6.3 release soon? > > I would like to merge the fix for #24918 (console input for ) > if other committers agree it is desirable (or at lea

Re: ant 1.6.3 release?

--- Jesse Glick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Reilly wrote: > > Is there anything that needs to be put into the > 1.6 branch to allow a > > 1.6.3 release soon? > > I would like to merge the fix for #24918 (console > input for ) if > other committers agree it is desirable (or at least > harm

Re: ant 1.6.3 release?

Peter Reilly wrote: Is there anything that needs to be put into the 1.6 branch to allow a 1.6.3 release soon? I would like to merge the fix for #24918 (console input for ) if other committers agree it is desirable (or at least harmless) and not too risky. Any opinions? -J. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ant 1.6.3 release?

--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Matt Benson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Should I add the latest DirectoryScanner > (hopefully) improvements? > > Yes. Done. -Matt > > Stefan > > - >

Re: ant 1.6.3 release?

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there anything that needs to be put into the 1.6 branch > to allow a 1.6.3 release soon? I'd love to squash more open bug reports, but many of them really are either filed against more or less unmaintained optional tasks or are no

Re: ant 1.6.3 release?

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Should I add the latest DirectoryScanner (hopefully) improvements? Yes. Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PR

Re: ant 1.6.3 release?

Peter Reilly wrote: Is there anything that needs to be put into the 1.6 branch to allow a 1.6.3 release soon? Peter For me it is OK. I am willing to prepare the 1.6.3 release. Cheers, Antoine - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTE

Re: ant 1.6.3 release?

Matt Benson wrote: I am about to merge , since I documented it at Ant 1.6.3 . Should I add the latest DirectoryScanner (hopefully) improvements? -Matt It will be a good way to put the improvements on the grill of widespread use. Cheers, Antoine

Re: ant 1.6.3 release?

I am about to merge , since I documented it at Ant 1.6.3 . Should I add the latest DirectoryScanner (hopefully) improvements? -Matt --- Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there anything that needs to be put into the 1.6 > branch > to allow a 1.6.3 release s

Re: ant 1.6.3 release?

Peter Reilly wrote: Is there anything that needs to be put into the 1.6 branch to allow a 1.6.3 release soon? I think the patch to RMI for java1.5 compat makes sense. Its a small change, near-zero chance of breakage as all it does is fix dependency logic and output file generation.

ant 1.6.3 release?

Is there anything that needs to be put into the 1.6 branch to allow a 1.6.3 release soon? Peter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ant 1.6.3

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefan Bodewig wrote >> >> I'd like to stop having to remember to merge stuff and validate >> that others thought of it as well, yes. >> > Does this mean that when we release 1.7.0 we do not make a 1.7 > branch anymore and wor

AW: Ant 1.6.3

> > I'd like to stop having to remember to merge stuff and validate that > > others thought of it as well, yes. > > > Does this mean that when we release 1.7.0 we do not make a 1.7 branch > anymore > and work on HEAD all the time ? can I delete the 16_branch locally? can I? can I? :-) > > Pa

Re: Ant 1.6.3

Stefan Bodewig wrote > > I'd like to stop having to remember to merge stuff and validate that > others thought of it as well, yes. > Does this mean that when we release 1.7.0 we do not make a 1.7 branch anymore and work on HEAD all the time ? > Part of Conor's alternative I agreed with was tha

Re: Ant 1.6.3

Stefan Bodewig wrote: Wearing my Gump hat, this sounds really bad. If we introduce a new feature in Ant we use Gump to testdrive it for backwards compatibility. Having known bugs inside the test drive doesn't seem a good idea to me. I think it comes down to the relative timeframe for these operat

Re: Ant 1.6.3

> > Would be an interesting experiment to see how often it blows up :) > > As soon as the branch really becomes warranted since you start to do > serious new development on HEAD. 8-) The merge will probably only > ever be possible without conflicts when you wouldn't need a branch > anyway. Not n

Re: Ant 1.6.3

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sounds like a feature request for gump: automatically merge the > branch and fail if there are conflicts, then fall back to just using > HEAD. Yeah, interesting idea. > Would be an interesting experiment to see how often it blows up :

Re: Ant 1.6.3

> Wearing my Gump hat, this sounds really bad. If we introduce a new > feature in Ant we use Gump to testdrive it for backwards > compatibility. Having known bugs inside the test drive doesn't seem a > good idea to me. sounds like a feature request for gump: automatically merge the branch and fa

Re: Ant 1.6.3

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefan, it sounds you would like to stop development on the 1.6 > branch. I'd like to stop having to remember to merge stuff and validate that others thought of it as well, yes. > If we do so, it will take a long while before

Re: Ant 1.6.3

Hi, Stefan, it sounds you would like to stop development on the 1.6 branch. If we do so, it will take a long while before everybody thinks there are enough changes to warrant a 1.7.0. Where I am working we are already using two fixes of 1.6.2 (one concerning the Zip task, and another one concerni

Re: Ant 1.6.3

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The choices I see for branch management are: > > 1. Keep going the way we are now - i.e. applying changes to both > HEAD and the active branch. painful. > 2. Keep going as we do now but make sure branches are shorter > lived. As

RE: Ant 1.6.3 [was status report on the PMC list]

> From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > No, I was talking about our processes in my regular work. Ah, but we're not asking you to switch to SVN ;-) Seriously, the merge burden needs to be addressed, and I really believe SVN is a possible solution (not the solution). --DD -

RE: Ant 1.6.3 [was status report on the PMC list]

> From: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > From: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Another more controversial alternative would be to use a CM tool > > > with better merging abilities, and Subversion co

RE: Ant 1.6.3 [was status report on the PMC list]

> From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > From: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Another more controversial alternative would be to use a CM > > tool with better merging abilities, and Subversion comes to > > mind of course. From the little I've read, it seems tha

AW: Ant 1.6.3 [was status report on the PMC list]

ndez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 25. August 2004 16:26 > An: Ant Developers List > Betreff: RE: Ant 1.6.3 [was status report on the PMC list] > > > From: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Another more controversial

RE: Ant 1.6.3 [was status report on the PMC list]

> From: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Another more controversial alternative would be to use a CM > tool with better merging abilities, and Subversion comes to > mind of course. From the little I've read, it seems that SVN > does merges better, without the need for tags,

AW: Ant 1.6.3 [was status report on the PMC list]

Forrest switched to SVN, for example. Jan > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 25. August 2004 15:46 > An: Ant Developers List > Betreff: RE: Ant 1.6.3 [was status report on the PMC list] > > &

RE: Ant 1.6.3 [was status report on the PMC list]

e >impact of this would be to have fewer micro releases and more minor > releases. i.e. instead of Ant 1.6.3, we would go from HEAD and call it > Ant 1.7 even though it may not contain any significant new features. Semi-automated repeated CVS merges between branches are very prone to issu

Re: Ant 1.6.3 [was status report on the PMC list]

- i.e. applying changes to both HEAD and the active branch. 2. Keep going as we do now but make sure branches are shorter lived. The impact of this would be to have fewer micro releases and more minor releases. i.e. instead of Ant 1.6.3, we would go from HEAD and call it Ant 1.7 even though it

RE: Ant 1.6.3 [was status report on the PMC list]

What is the criteria that is use by the Ant project for a major, minor, and micro version bump? Stephen. > -Original Message- > From: Antoine Levy-Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 August 2004 22:02 > To: Ant Developers List > Subject: Ant 1.6.3 [was status re

Ant 1.6.3 [was status report on the PMC list]

FYI On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: It sounds like we need to discuss whether we want an ant 1.6.3 or go directly to ant 1.7.0. We could call the HEAD 1.6.3. There is currently IMO not