On 09/03/2003 06:33 PM Gus Heck wrote:
As I've been saying all along, lets just introduce a new (unique) notion
for attribute/variable expansion (at use time rather than definition
time), which
is something new in Ant anyhow. No (or less?) backward compatibility
issues, and makes it plain and obvio
Costin Manolache wrote:
Dominique Devienne wrote:
As I've been saying all along, lets just introduce a new (unique) notion
for attribute/variable expansion (at use time rather than definition
time), which
is something new in Ant anyhow. No (or less?) backward compatibility
issues, and makes it p
> -Original Message-
> From: Costin Manolache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > As I've been saying all along, lets just introduce a new (unique) notion
> > for attribute/variable expansion (at use time rather than definition
> > time), which
> > is something new in Ant anyhow. No (or less?)
Dominique Devienne wrote:
> As I've been saying all along, lets just introduce a new (unique) notion
> for attribute/variable expansion (at use time rather than definition
> time), which
> is something new in Ant anyhow. No (or less?) backward compatibility
> issues, and makes it plain and obvio
Gus Heck wrote, On 02/09/2003 17.26:
...
From Nicola Ken Barozzi:
>Imports should be reusable bits of builds. But instead they carry the
baggage
>of targets. With macrodef I can finally *create tasks using Ant*.
And so Ant becomes an xml based programming language? Writing tasks in
java seems
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 16:26, Gus Heck wrote:
> >> follows (I think) the same rules of properties as
> >> with
> >> inheritall=yes.
>
> Modeling after antcall...? I am wary of this as antcall is broken at the
> top level.
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22759 I certainly
> From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> >
> > Property interceptors are not part of Ant, and might never
> be for that
> > matter. Using a notation that mimicks interceptors is
> probably not a
> > good idea either.
> >
> > As I've been saying all along, lets just introduce a ne
Steve Loughran wrote:
Gus Heck wrote:
I don't think there's such a thing as experimental stuff. It's
either in or
not, and once in, it must be backward compatible.
I'm sorry so few people chimed in on the subject of overloading the
meaning
of ${name} in Ant. If this could be changed, then I'd h
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
peter reilly wrote, On 01/09/2003 20.10:
On Monday 01 September 2003 16:43, Dominique Devienne wrote:
...
It's not all about power, or one would use a real programming language
like Perl or Python. , although powerful, complexifies the
rules
of Ant, namely the property e
> > > 3. and
> > >
> > a) resolution of properties
> > The issue here is that properties get resolved when the
> > macro is used and not when the macro is defined.
> > I think that it would be difficult to resolve the
> > properties correctly when the macro is defined.
> >
>
peter reilly wrote, On 01/09/2003 20.10:
On Monday 01 September 2003 16:43, Dominique Devienne wrote:
...
It's not all about power, or one would use a real programming language
like Perl or Python. , although powerful, complexifies the rules
of Ant, namely the property expansion one, making it con
On Monday 01 September 2003 16:43, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > 3. and
> >
> > a) resolution of properties
> > The issue here is that properties get resolved when the
> > macro is used and not when
> -Original Message-
> From: peter reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > 3. and
> >
> a) resolution of properties
> The issue here is that properties get resolved when the
> macro is used and not when the macro is defined.
> I think that it would be difficult to resol
Hi,
I was on holidays the last two weeks
and so will use this reply to some
of the issues.
On Thursday 28 August 2003 14:07, Conor MacNeill wrote:
> My position on these issues is
>
> 1.
>
> Go with it as is. I think it is useful and useable without coming up
> against some of the cases we have
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Is Gump running
> > on any Windows boxes?
>
> Not yet. But I plan to give Gump a try on my WinXP and W2K machine.
The problem I had when I tried was rsync. Even after installing a Windows
version of rsync, I s
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:08 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> and we need to get the new Launcher tested in a wider audience.
>> Gump doesn't use it, it still uses Main as its entry point
> The Main entry point is still valid and will rem
> >
> > Maybe we should consequentyl call the first 1.6 release 1.6.0 then?
> >
>
> +1
+0 A 1.6 implied the 1.6.0, I think. But that´s the smallest problem :-)
> Is Gump running
> on any Windows boxes?
Not yet. But I plan to give Gump a try on my WinXP and W2K machine.
> I would like to
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:08 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> Peter is currently on vacation, I hope he'll be back soon enough to
> chime in.
>
Agreed. I'd like Peter's thoughts too as he is involved with most of the major
changes, especially antlib.
>
> Maybe we should consequentyl call the first 1.6 r
Peter is currently on vacation, I hope he'll be back soon enough to
chime in.
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> There will probably be a 1.6.1 release in between to clean up any
> issues we discover in 1.6
Maybe we should consequentyl call the first 1.6 release 1.6
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about try/catch, BTW? Can we pull in the ant-contrib version so
> it is 'blessed' with official approval?
* let's see if we want it (and/or other parts of ant-contrib)
* ask the ant-contrib project maintainer's whether it is O
by Conor
> What I'd suggest is that soon we branch 1.6 and remove anything that is
still
> settling down. I think we have a few ideas that need to be kicked around
> before we feel comfortable with them. This work can continue on the HEAD
>(1.7) while we prepare a release.
+1
by Conor
> Once
> Conor MacNeill wrote:
>
> > What I'd suggest is that soon we branch 1.6 and remove
> > anything that
> > is still settling down. I think we have a few ideas that need to be
> > kicked around before we feel comfortable with them. This work can
> > continue on the HEAD (1.7) while we prepare a
Conor MacNeill wrote:
> What I'd suggest is that soon we branch 1.6 and remove anything that is
> still settling down. I think we have a few ideas that need to be kicked
> around before we feel comfortable with them. This work can continue on the
> HEAD (1.7) while we prepare a release.
+1
> I'
Conor MacNeill wrote:
There are surely others so let me know.
What about try/catch, BTW? Can we pull in the ant-contrib version so it
is 'blessed' with official approval?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additiona
Gus Heck wrote:
I don't think there's such a thing as experimental stuff. It's either
in or
not, and once in, it must be backward compatible.
I'm sorry so few people chimed in on the subject of overloading the
meaning
of ${name} in Ant. If this could be changed, then I'd have an
enthusiastic
+
I don't think there's such a thing as experimental stuff. It's either in or
not, and once in, it must be backward compatible.
I'm sorry so few people chimed in on the subject of overloading the meaning
of ${name} in Ant. If this could be changed, then I'd have an enthusiastic
+1, but as it stands,
On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 09:07 AM, Conor MacNeill wrote:
Hi all,
What I'd suggest is that soon we branch 1.6 and remove anything that
is still
settling down. I think we have a few ideas that need to be kicked
around
before we feel comfortable with them. This work can continue on the
HE
Conor MacNeill wrote:
Hi all,
I've been a bit busy lately so still catching up on issues. I'd really like to
get Ant 1.6 out there. There are a bucket load of bugs that we've fixed and
improvements we've made that should get out there, judging by bug reports.
+1
What I'd suggest is that soon we
> -Original Message-
> From: Antoine Levy-Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 1.
>
> I would also go for it as it is.
+1. I'm awaiting eagerly too.
> > 2. antlib
>
> I have not tested it myself, but we need to release the fe
- Original Message -
From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:07 PM
Subject: Getting 1.6 out the door
> Hi all,
>
> I've been a bit busy lately so still catching up on issues. I'd really
like to
> get Ant 1.6 out there. There ar
30 matches
Mail list logo
