Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
I also would like "macrodef/define" if people agree
we can always add the "local-properties" once the implementation
works correctly.
I think that it is too early to add macrodef/define to 1.6.3.
Peter
Thoughts,
Jose Alberto
-
:57
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: Ant 1.6 branch + JDK 1.5 + win2K test failure
>
>
> Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have not been committing a lot lately, but if we want to release a
> > 1.6.3 soon I can take care of preparing
Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:
Hi,
I have not been committing a lot lately, but if we want to release a
1.6.3 soon I can take care of preparing a beta ?
Yes, I think we need a 1.6.3.
It has been a while since 1.6.2 and there is stuff in 1.7 that needs
a little bit more work.
The problem would be in c
Hi
All testcases an ant 1.6 head passed on XP with 1.2.2_017 / 1.3.1_13 /
1.4.2_06 and 1.5.0.
JavaTest didn't pass the first time on 1.4.2 and 1.5.0 but that is a
problem I face regularly (didn't investigate why this problem occurs
intermittently)
Kind Regards, Martijn
Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:
Hi,
I have not been committing a lot lately, but if we want to release a
1.6.3 soon I can take care of preparing a beta ?
I was wondering whether we would like the fix for the bug 25777
(Cannot pass composite path reference...) to be merged in the 1.6
branch ?
Thank
Hi,
I have not been committing a lot lately, but if we want to release a
1.6.3 soon I can take care of preparing a beta ?
I was wondering whether we would like the fix for the bug 25777 (Cannot
pass composite path reference...) to be merged in the 1.6 branch ?
Thanks to Peter for having committ
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just updated, bootstrapped, and ran the test suite, and got this:
DependTest used to fail on HEAD as well (JDK 1.5 only), Conor fixed it
a while ago (but didn't merge the change to the 1.6 branch).
Yeah, s
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just updated, bootstrapped, and ran the test suite, and got this:
DependTest used to fail on HEAD as well (JDK 1.5 only), Conor fixed it
a while ago (but didn't merge the change to the 1.6 branch).
Stefan
---
> From: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > From: Alexey N. Solofnenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Today is the first day after some time when all tests went through.
I
> am
> > using XP and no third party jars.
>
> Well, I use Windows 2000 still at work, and it ain't passing
> From: Alexey N. Solofnenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Today is the first day after some time when all tests went through. I
am
> using XP and no third party jars.
Well, I use Windows 2000 still at work, and it ain't passing for me
with JDK 1.5.0_01. I also don't have any 3rd parties and no c
Today is the first day after some time when all tests went through. I am
using XP and no third party jars.
- Alexey.
Dominique Devienne wrote:
I just updated, bootstrapped, and ran the test suite, and got this:
[junit] Testcase:
testClosure(org.apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.optional.depend.DependT
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, Jelly uses Grant as well, so maybe this is a first trace for
> the problem we see.
Completely wrong. I think I've found it and next night's Gump run
will show.
Jelly doesn't set the ant.file property on project instances it
c
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, I've gotten myself on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cool.
> because I'm interested in that anyway, so I won't cross-post to gump
> again :)
OK, last cross-post so that people interested in that issue know to
join [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> I didn
Ok, I've gotten myself on [EMAIL PROTECTED] because I'm interested in that
anyway, so
I won't cross-post to gump again :)
> > This would be contributing to Maven's failure with Ant 1.6
> then, too.
>
> Quite possible.
>
> I didn't know that Maven had a problem with Ant 1.6, even
> though I am
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand that there is a consensus to have macrodef use
> @{attribute} notation.
Uhm, yes. If we count your "is fine with me" as +1, we have three +1s
which would be enough for lazy consensus.
> My preference would be to
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Well now that we are finally getting to an agreement
> > on I think it is time to start a new round
> > of rocous over , (not enough traffic today ;-P )
>
> We don
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Well now that we are finally getting to an agreement
> on I think it is time to start a new round
> of rocous over , (not enough traffic today ;-P )
We don't seem to be too successful in generating responses these
days. 8-)
Well now that we are finally getting to an agreement
on I think it is time to start a new round
of rocous over , (not enough traffic today ;-P )
I still fill a little unconfortable on using
for defining local-scopes (which was the original usage)
and using to define values that must be differen
expansion. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
-Original Message-
From: Jacob Kjome [<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 11/28/2003 6:39 PM
To: Ant Users List
Cc:
Subject:RE: Ant 1.6 local and macrodef attributes
Thanks for explaining
e-
From: Jacob Kjome [<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 11/28/2003 6:39 PM
To: Ant Users List
Cc:
Subject:RE: Ant 1.6 local and macrodef attributes
Thanks for explaining that Peter.
I took a look and found your latest proposal here...
&
ease correct me if I'm wrong.
-Original Message-
From: Jacob Kjome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 11/28/2003 6:39 PM
To: Ant Users List
Cc:
Subject:RE: Ant 1.6 local and macrodef attributes
Thanks for explaining that Peter.
I took a look and found your
From: Jose Alberto Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 11/26/2003 6:15 AM
To: Ant Developers List
Cc:
Subject: RE: Ant 1.6 local and macrodef attributes
Here is my proposal for you guys to vote on.
Two completely separate votes:
1) Vote on @{x} as the syntax fo
Here is my proposal for you guys to vote on.
Two completely separate votes:
1) Vote on @{x} as the syntax for textual substitutions
of attributes in .
Once this is settle, we can move on releasing
in B3 with its fixed syntax.
2) Vote on , must include decision on syntax,
scope (i.e., passing t
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 11:09, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > a)
> > I sent a vote last week on local properties
> > and the result was:
> >committers others (+ votes in bugzilla)
> >have local in ant 1
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 10:31, Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
> > From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > b)
> > I send an vote the week before about local properties being
> > implemented by textual replacement or by using local
> > properties. The result was:
>
> The vote was ab
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a)
> I sent a vote last week on local properties
> and the result was:
>committers others (+ votes in bugzilla)
>have local in ant 1.6 2 1 + 6
>not 0 0
>
> From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> b)
> I send an vote the week before about local properties being
> implemented by textual replacement or by using local
> properties. The result was:
>
The vote was about macrodef expanding attributes as local properties.
Just to make things
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 14:27, Christopher Lenz wrote:
> peter reilly wrote:
> > On Monday 17 November 2003 17:20, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> >>Slightly related, if I extracted or wrote a schema for Ant,
> >>and specified an xsi:schemaLocation attribute in ,
> >>will Ant ignore the attribute,
peter reilly wrote:
On Monday 17 November 2003 17:20, Dominique Devienne wrote:
Slightly related, if I extracted or wrote a schema for Ant,
and specified an xsi:schemaLocation attribute in ,
will Ant ignore the attribute, or barf?
If the class did not contain a setSchemaLocation() method or
was an
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We could modify namespace processing to ignore attributes not in the
> "right" namespace.
+1
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional comma
Dominique Devienne wrote:
From: Christopher Lenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dominique Devienne wrote:
From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 17 November 2003 17:01, Dominique Devienne wrote:
So the NS for and does not matter?
Conceptually they are part of the Ant XML dialect to me,
> From: Christopher Lenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dominique Devienne wrote:
> >>From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>>On Monday 17 November 2003 17:01, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> >>>
> >>>So the NS for and does not matter?
> >>>Conceptually they are part of the Ant XML dialec
Dominique Devienne wrote:
From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 17 November 2003 17:01, Dominique Devienne wrote:
So the NS for and does not matter?
Conceptually they are part of the Ant XML dialect to me,
so seeing them in no namespace at all seems weird??? --DD
If no namespace
On Monday 17 November 2003 17:20, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > On Monday 17 November 2003 17:01, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > >
> > > So the NS for and does not matter?
> > > Conceptually they are part of the Ant XML dialect to me,
> > > so
> From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Monday 17 November 2003 17:01, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> >
> > So the NS for and does not matter?
> > Conceptually they are part of the Ant XML dialect to me,
> > so seeing them in no namespace at all seems weird??? --DD
>
> If no namespace
On Monday 17 November 2003 17:01, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Yes, this is std xml (not visible from ant processing code):
> >
> > > xmlns:ant="antlib:org.apache.tools.ant"
> > xmlns:acme="antlib:org.acme.anttasks">
> >
>
> From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Yes, this is std xml (not visible from ant processing code):
>
> xmlns:ant="antlib:org.apache.tools.ant"
> xmlns:acme="antlib:org.acme.anttasks">
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thanks to Peter and Chris. Option B looks good to me
as well... this can also be called beta1 behavior,
which is less error-prone/confusing with macrodef
elements, for one thing. Incidentally I'd probably
use the first example more often than not.
-Matt
--- Christopher Lenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Matt Benson wrote:
--- peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example:
The arguments are equal
Okay, how about redoing the same example with:
...
or will that syntax be available at all?
That should be:
On Monday 17 November 2003 16:11, Matt Benson wrote:
> --- peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For example:
> >
> > > xmlns:acme="antlib:org.acme.anttasks">
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >The arguments are equal
--- peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> For example:
>
> xmlns:acme="antlib:org.acme.anttasks">
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The arguments are equal
>
>
>
>
>
Okay, how about redoing the same example w
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From the feedback, I think that we should implement option b),
+1
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECT
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Jose Alberto Fernandez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is while executing a target that has nothing to do with these
> s. Although it seem to continue, the scarry part is that one
> does not know if the will be are being actually damaged
It won't.
> Why am I getting this
Peter,
It took me a little while, but I figured it out. I had another
declaration that was not in a target that depended on one that was in the
target. Because of this I was getting the error message whenever the
buildfile was loaded. I saw it several times because I had some
tasks that loade
Can you give an example of the build file
where this happens?
Peter
On Wednesday 24 September 2003 17:39, Kevin LaVergne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am seeing the following message:
>
> Caught exception (org.apache.tools.ant.BuildException) while expanding
> jboss.classpath:
> C:\views\klavergn_synergy_1.0
On Tuesday 23 September 2003 18:08, Kevin LaVergne wrote:
> I am attempting to test Ant 1.6 on my company's buildfiles. We have been
> using namespaces (without declaring them) but it now seems that they won't
The problem is the "without declaring them", ant 1.5 and before did
not enable namespace
IMHO there's 2 possible triggers for branching off:
- it's time to run the build/release and you want to make sure you capture
the point at which this was done
- a critical piece of work that should not go into the build/release
absolutely has to go into CVS
so for practical reasons (i.e. having
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 04:13 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> I remeber you've told me the same at least once in the past 8-)
>
Well, I don't like the inefficiency :-). It doesn't make sense to me to branch
and then do a whole lot of work to keep the branches in sync :-( Anyway, I'll
be merging across
> I would like to release ant 1.6 beta on tuesday next week
> (September 30th).
> Can you all have your changes ready by then ?
>
> Really what I would prefer is that all changes which should
> go into both 1.6
> and HEAD get merged by the committer who does the change, so
> that I do not
> hav
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> I'll stay away from HEAD for things that should go into 1.6 and let
>> Antoine merge it later.
>
> I am working the other way -against HEAD and then hoping on getting
> clearance from antoine before moving s
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
IMHO, If we are going to branch then let's fix everything on the
branch and focus on getting 1.6 out the door. We then do one merge.
I remeber you've told me the same at least once in the past 8-)
I'll stay away
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> IMHO, If we are going to branch then let's fix everything on the
> branch and focus on getting 1.6 out the door. We then do one merge.
I remeber you've told me the same at least once in the past 8-)
I'll stay away from HEAD for thi
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 08:11 pm, Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote:
> I have tagged the ANT_16_BRANCH (actually 2 hours before schedule, hope it
> does not disturb anyone).
>
The fact that every commit now involves a merge to 1.6 or vice versa would
indicate to me that this branch is too early.
IMHO, If
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:40 am, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Antoine Lévy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> > - sort out if possible the CLASSPATH issue by :
>
> What you propose would probably work.
>
> On the other hand, Launcher could give us a chance to break away from
> th
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Antoine Lévy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> - sort out if possible the CLASSPATH issue by :
What you propose would probably work.
On the other hand, Launcher could give us a chance to break away from
the "everything is on a single classpath, which is as good as the
sys
> - sort out if possible the CLASSPATH issue by :
>
> adding a -lib command line flag
> this command line flag would be processed in Launcher, not in Main
> and removed from what is passed to Main
> the locations coming with -lib would be set ahead in the URL
> arrays used to
> construct the load
Steve Collins wrote, On 14/07/2003 23.47:
I would like to see an option to the task of whether the file
must exist.
Ant exits now if the imported file is not there.
It would be useful to me since my build file uses XSLT to generate files
to be imported and those files are not there on the first
; -Original Message-
> From: Steve Loughran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 3:37 PM
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: Ant 1.6 todo thoughts
>
> Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > Thanks for the quick answer Conor and Stefan. Glad to head this should
Dominique Devienne wrote:
Thanks for the quick answer Conor and Stefan. Glad to head this should be
working with Ant CVS. We're using Ant 1.5.3 of course, and are unlikely to
switch over to Ant CVS though. I will nonetheless soon make sure Ant CVS is
backward compatible with all our builds and cust
g [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 9:56 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Ant 1.6 todo thoughts
>
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > However, when an existing (custom) task/type is modified, Ant fa
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 6:40 AM
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: Ant 1.6 todo thoughts
>
> Ok:
>1) polymorphism
>2) loading of antlib.xml files/resource
>3) namespace
>4) roles
>
> Peter
>
> On Wed, 2003-06
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, when an existing (custom) task/type is modified, Ant fails
> at parse time saying this task or type doesn't support this
> attribute or nested element (which is of course available in the
> latest version of buildtools),
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:44 am, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> Hi Conor and fellow Anters,
>
Hi Dominique,
Have you been trying Ant 1.6 in this scenario already? I would expect it to
work for you. It should be all UnknownElements now with resolution just prior
to execution so your buildtools task sh
ror message...
My solution is probably naïve, and I'm not advocating its adoption, but I
*really really* would like this particular (little) problem solved. It would
make Ant much more user friendly, and I hope it could be in Ant 1.6.
Thanks, --DD
> -Original Message-
> From: Con
Ok:
1) polymorphism
2) loading of antlib.xml files/resource
3) namespace
4) roles
Peter
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 10:25, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The roadmap could be:
> >1) roles (allowing the typedef definition to be opti
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> How do we want to approach bringing in try-catch? I'm +1 on the idea
> but unsure of the ant-contrib situation in terms of granting that
> code to Apache. Thoughts?
Legally we'd need a software grant form signed by all people that h
Thanks for all the feedback. Some follow up thoughts:
I will be working on the lcp.bat replacement next. This will address the
command line too long, environment space issues, etc.
I'm reluctant to go through a 1.5.4 release. It is possible but it doesn't
give us much for the amount of effort i
On 25 Jun 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The roadmap could be:
>1) roles (allowing the typedef definition to be optionally
> restricted - this is required to allow current conditions
> /filters etcs to be defined) (+ extendtype)
>2) polymorphism (using ant-type
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 13:43, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> I'd like to kick off a discussion on what needs to be done to get Ant 1.6 to
> a
> release. I'm just going to ramble through some random thoughts I have been
> having in no particular order just to get discussion started.
>
> I don't have a
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 08:44 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
Hmm, if this is a pressing bug, we may as well think about 1.5.4
instead. I'd even be willing to wade through all those "small"
bugfixes and merge them over to the 1.5 branch ...
Not that I was keen on doing another 1.5 release, but if
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 08:43 AM, Conor MacNeill wrote:
I'd like to kick off a discussion on what needs to be done to get Ant
1.6 to a
release. I'm just going to ramble through some random thoughts I have
been
having in no particular order just to get discussion started.
+1 on Conor to get
Steve Loughran wrote:
2. Import task
I think this needs more testing and work. I currently have a disabled
testcase that shows one problem. I think we have had some discussions
on the meaning of basedirs for imported stuff without any clear
resolution.
I am using this in a project as of last we
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 12:12 PM, Steve Loughran wrote:
Personally I think machine-generated is the right approach, but we
need to transfer the rules about optional attributes into the xdocs,
then sit down and migrate all the current docs into xdocs form.
Also, is xdocs currently runnin
"Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'd like to kick off a discussion on what needs to be done to get Ant 1.6
to a
> release. I'm just going to ramble through some random thoughts I have been
> having in no particular order just to get discussion st
Conor MacNeill wrote:
I'd like to kick off a discussion on what needs to be done to get Ant 1.6 to a
release. I'm just going to ramble through some random thoughts I have been
having in no particular order just to get discussion started.
I don't have any fixed timeframe in mind, or anything so
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I don't have any fixed timeframe in mind, or anything so concrete at
> this stage but I think we need to start looking at it.
Generally fine with me.
> After all, I can only stand seeing the javah bug reported so many
> times. Funn
76 matches
Mail list logo
