Attic means it is deleted.
It is possible that cvsgrab ignores the
deleted files.
Peter
On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 12:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > and the Aspect interface
> > > > http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/ant/proposal/mutant/src/java
> > > > /common/org/apache/ant/common/antlib/Attic/A
> > > and the Aspect interface
> > > http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/ant/proposal/mutant/src/java
> > > /common/org/apache/ant/common/antlib/Attic/Aspect.java?rev=1.5
> > > &content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
> >
> > Typo in javadoc of the class: "It allows a single __implmentation__"
> >
>
>
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 05:47 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > and the Aspect interface
> > http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/ant/proposal/mutant/src/java
> > /common/org/apache/ant/common/antlib/Attic/Aspect.java?rev=1.5
> > &content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
>
> Typo in javadoc of the class: "It al
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[... aspects ...]
> It's a fair amount of change so overall, I'd say this is a 1.7
> feature.
Fair enough.
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For ad
> and the Aspect interface
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/ant/proposal/mutant/src/java
> /common/org/apache/ant/common/antlib/Attic/Aspect.java?rev=1.5
> &content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
Typo in javadoc of the class: "It allows a single __implmentation__"
(Sorry, my cvs doesn´t work y
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 04:43 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you saying I'm repeating myself
>
> No, *we* are repeating history. Go into ant-dev's archive about two
> years+ ago (discussion around the Ant2 features).
>
> See also [1
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Alexey Solofnenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually the reason to implement keep-alive (originally keep-going)
> is to find as many problems as possible. It is done by executing all
> targets that do not depend directly or indirectly on failed
> targets. It is not fail-on-e
On 08 Jul 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 16:06, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> What would you want to see happen with keep-alive enabled and
>> failonerror set to true on an task. What will happen if the
>> execution fails?
>
> In this the rest of the tasks in t
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you saying I'm repeating myself
No, *we* are repeating history. Go into ant-dev's archive about two
years+ ago (discussion around the Ant2 features).
See also [1] and search for "aspect".
Stefan
Footnotes:
[1]
http://c
5 AM
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Patch] keep-alive feature
>
> I think the followon to Ant1.6 is time to add that. It would give us an
> excuse to call that followon Ant2.0, too.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EM
Dominique Devienne wrote:
This discussing brings back the still pending issue of having a generic
if/unless on all tasks/types to name just an example...
failonerror, if/unless, ant:type, and some other attributes most likely,
control 'aspects' of the build, that should be dealt with in a single pl
the feature in make:
http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/make/make_52.html#IDX188
- Alexey.
-Original Message-
From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 7:18 AM
To: Ant Developers List
Subject: Re: [Patch] keep-alive feature
The keep-alive feature is not quite
On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 16:06, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 08 Jul 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The keep-alive feature is not quite the same
> > as a fail-on-error on each task, it is more
> > like a fail-on-error for each target.
>
> So be it, add it to Target as well 8-)
>
>
ard-wired
in Ant 1.6. And leave the generalization to a later date/release. --DD
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 10:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Patch] keep-alive feature
>
> On Tu
On 08 Jul 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The keep-alive feature is not quite the same
> as a fail-on-error on each task, it is more
> like a fail-on-error for each target.
So be it, add it to Target as well 8-)
What would you want to see happen with keep-alive enabled and
failon
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> failonerror, if/unless, ant:type, and some other attributes most
> likely, control 'aspects' of the build, that should be dealt with in
> a single place!
Well, it's not exactly as if we were having that discussion for the
first t
nal Message-
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 2:41 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Patch] keep-alive feature
>
> Well, we've already introduced one magic attribute with the
> polymorphism patch (will introduce). I&#
The keep-alive feature is not quite the same
as a fail-on-error on each task, it is more
like a fail-on-error for each target.
I have test-driven it in my build env where
I have a large number of c++ programs to compile.
It is nice to able to change a header file and
then compile all the programs
On 07 Jul 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am thinking of committing the keep-alive
> feature:
>
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21144
>
> Do any of the ant commiters have a problem with
> this feature?
Well, we've already introduced one magic attribute with
On Mon, 2003-07-07 at 18:12, Steve Loughran wrote:
> peter reilly wrote:
> > I am thinking of committing the keep-alive
> > feature:
> >
> > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21144
> >
> > Do any of the ant commiters have a problem with
> > this feature?
> >
> I am mostly neutra
peter reilly wrote:
I am thinking of committing the keep-alive
feature:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21144
Do any of the ant commiters have a problem with
this feature?
I am mostly neutral. I can see its value in some cases (install, but
think that it may lead to grief down th
21 matches
Mail list logo
