On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Martijn Kruithof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 to rename build.clonevm to ant.build.clonevm in that case.
Sounds reasonable, we'll only need to ensure we modify all Gump
descriptors using it at the same time. I can handle that.
Stefan
+1 on the general policy for "ant.*" and "org.apache.tools.ant.*"
-1 for "build.*"; I'm sure there are many projects that use "build.this"
or "build.that"
--
Jeffrey E. Care ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
WebSphere Build SWAT Team Lead
WebSphere Build Tooling Lead (Project Mantis)
https://w3.opensource.ibm
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Jan Materne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > maybe we should reserve the "build." prefix as well -
>> > build.sysclasspath and CVS HEAD's build.clonevm.
>
> I wouldnt do that - I cant count the numbers of buildfiles where I
> have seen build.dir and build.classes ...
True.
S
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 13 Jan 2005, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have declared a policy on what we will name new properties. Is
this a good formal policy to have?
If new properties get added (it happens), expect them to appear
under the "ant." and "org.apache.tools.ant" prefixes, unless the
de
Sounds good
+ 1
Cheers,
Antoine
> On 13 Jan 2005, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have declared a policy on what we will name new properties. Is
> > this a good formal policy to have?
>
>
>
> > If new properties get added (it happens), expect them to appear
> > under the "ant." and "org.ap
