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://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4cxx-user&m=11152259730666
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'll look into.
> and
> http://ma
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
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
--- 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
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]
--- 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
>
>
-
>
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
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
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
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
---
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 soon?
>
> Peter
>
>
>
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.
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
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
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
> > 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
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 :
> 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
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
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
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
> 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
-
> 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
> 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
> 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,
> From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>
> 2. Keep going as we do now but make sure branches are shorter lived.
The
>impact of this would
Stephen McConnell wrote:
What is the criteria that is use by the Ant project for a major, minor,
and micro version bump?
Stephen.
This is my opinion.
A major version number increment represents a change in internal
architecture. At such a transition some level of backwards compatibility
breakage
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 report on the PMC
29 matches
Mail list logo
