RE: Ant 1.6.1 Converting Errors To Exceptions...Good|Bad?

> From: Wascally Wabbit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > At 05:26 AM 2/19/2004, you wrote: > > Yes, but Ant basically pretends they did not occur. It does > not try to "deal" with anything. In my situation the error > was an out-of-memory issue. There are some environment issues > that Ant tries

RE: Ant 1.6.1 Converting Errors To Exceptions...Good|Bad?

At 05:26 AM 2/19/2004, you wrote: > From: Wascally Wabbit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Ant Developers, > > I've come across (ok stumbled across) an implementation > detail of the new Ant 1.6.1 "keepGoing" mode. The way the > code is currently written Ant keeps going even if an Error > (not an Exce

Re: Ant 1.6.1 Converting Errors To Exceptions...Good|Bad?

Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote: From: Wascally Wabbit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ant Developers, I've come across (ok stumbled across) an implementation detail of the new Ant 1.6.1 "keepGoing" mode. The way the code is currently written Ant keeps going even if an Error (not an Exception) occurs. Thi

RE: Ant 1.6.1 Converting Errors To Exceptions...Good|Bad?

> From: Wascally Wabbit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Ant Developers, > > I've come across (ok stumbled across) an implementation > detail of the new Ant 1.6.1 "keepGoing" mode. The way the > code is currently written Ant keeps going even if an Error > (not an Exception) occurs. This strikes me

Re: Ant 1.6.1 release / md5sum missing in the source distribution

Matt Benson wrote: --- Antoine_Lévy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now I have found the reason why I did not generate the md5sum files when building the ant 1.6.1 distribution. the task in the src-dist target failed, and md5sum files are normally generated after this delete. I had not pai

Re: Ant 1.6.1 release / md5sum missing in the source distribution

--- Antoine_Lévy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now I have found the reason why I did not generate > the md5sum files when > building the ant 1.6.1 distribution. > the task in the src-dist target failed, and > md5sum files are > normally generated after this delete. > I had not paid attent

Re: Ant 1.6.1 release / md5sum missing in the source distribution

Now I have found the reason why I did not generate the md5sum files when building the ant 1.6.1 distribution. the task in the src-dist target failed, and md5sum files are normally generated after this delete. I had not paid attention to this failure. I do not know why the delete failed, maybe th

RE: Ant 1.6.1 released

> -Original Message- > From: Antoine Lévy-Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 6:13 AM > To: Ant Developers List; Ant Users List > Subject: Ant 1.6.1 released > > > Apache Ant 1.6.1 is now available for download > f

RE: Ant 1.6.1 & License

> +1 at least it will set all the copyright dates to 2004 :-[ Why so sad? So you can modify a sourcefile and can´t get worry about forgetting changing the date :-) http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/ant/docs/manual/CoreTypes/selectors.html?r ev=1.19&view=auto But after changing the date we have

Re: Ant 1.6.1 & License

Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: The vote for including the Apache License version 2 in ant 1.6.1 will be over only on February 2. I am not quite sure whether this is a PMC vote ? Right now we have +1 from Conor and from Jan, and -1 from Erik. If this is a PMC vote, I believe we need two PMC +1 for th

Re: Ant 1.6.1 & License

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Jan Materne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But I haven´t a point about changing licenses ... Well, we don't have much choice anyway, do we? I mean for any release after March. I don't see any reason to rush the change if it means delaying the release. If the switch can be do

RE: Ant 1.6.1 & License

> The vote for including the Apache License version 2 in ant > 1.6.1 will be > over only on February 2. > > I am not quite sure whether this is a PMC vote ? Yesterday I saw the bylaws by accident :-) http://ant.apache.org/bylaws.html#actions sais something about that. Product Release: Active

Re: Ant 1.6.1 & License

> My problem is more to get the good Perl script to change all the sources > without errors. I do not want to pollute too much our cvs change logs. > (I read that Adam Jack is preparing something like that for Gump). ;-) > > Does the change of the copyright notice change also the copyright last > y

Re: ant 1.6.1

Well, we at commons-net would have been rushing the release to meet ant's "deadline" and there are internal refactorings which we would have liked to have included that we were planning to postpone in the rush, but now will take the time to get right, so I doubt that commons-net-1.2.0 will be do

Re: ant 1.6.1

Steve Cohen wrote: On Friday 16 January 2004 4:56 am, Steve Loughran wrote: Steve Cohen wrote: Another issue to consider. I don't know if it's strictly a 1.6.1 issue or further down the line but the ant developers should consider it. I have been working with the jakarta-commons/net project

Re: ant 1.6.1

On Friday 16 January 2004 4:56 am, Steve Loughran wrote: > Steve Cohen wrote: > > Another issue to consider. I don't know if it's strictly a 1.6.1 issue > > or further down the line but the ant developers should consider it. > > > > I have been working with the jakarta-commons/net project to creat

Re: ant 1.6.1

Steve Cohen wrote: Another issue to consider. I don't know if it's strictly a 1.6.1 issue or further down the line but the ant developers should consider it. I have been working with the jakarta-commons/net project to create a more capable system, able to detect what system its FTPClient class

Re: ant 1.6.1

Steve Cohen wrote: Another issue to consider. I don't know if it's strictly a 1.6.1 issue or further down the line but the ant developers should consider it. I have been working with the jakarta-commons/net project to create a more capable system, able to detect what system its FTPClient class

Re: ant 1.6.1

Another issue to consider. I don't know if it's strictly a 1.6.1 issue or further down the line but the ant developers should consider it. I have been working with the jakarta-commons/net project to create a more capable system, able to detect what system its FTPClient class is connecting with

Re: ant 1.6.1

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, My name is Sean Egan. I've been making some changes to the ClearCase package of ANT based on version 1.6.0. These changes are almost finished. I just downloaded the 1.6.0 source and modifed that. How do I go about getting these changes accepted back into the official ve

Re: ant 1.6.1

Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Antoine Lévy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: do we want to make ant 1.6.1 next week ? Are there any known important issues pending? I have a Perforce task issue which I want to solve this evening. But I would not call it an important issue.

Re: ant 1.6.1

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Antoine Lévy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > do we want to make ant 1.6.1 next week ? Are there any known important issues pending? > do we need to make a beta before the release ? Probably yes. Stefan -

RE: ant 1.6.1 [was: Pb with namespaces in Ant 1.6 official]

> From: Antoine Lévy-Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Dominique : can you use a patched version of ant 1.6.0 until we provide > an official new release ? Actually, thanks to Peter's answer I'm not stuck any more. At first I thought I couldn't use namespaces at all to turn around the bug, whi

Re: ant 1.6.1 [was: Pb with namespaces in Ant 1.6 official]

Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Tue, 06 Jan 2004, Antoine Lévy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dominique Devienne wrote: Does this warrant a 1.6.1? I'm actually quite stuck because of this bug This bug is impacting the most salient feature of ant 1.6.0, in the core of ant, so it is i

Re: ant 1.6.1 [was: Pb with namespaces in Ant 1.6 official]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004, Antoine Lévy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dominique Devienne wrote: > >>Does this warrant a 1.6.1? I'm actually quite stuck because of this >>bug >> >> > This bug is impacting the most salient feature of ant 1.6.0, in the > core of ant, so it is important. +1 > D

Re: ant 1.6.1 [was: Pb with namespaces in Ant 1.6 official]

Dominique Devienne wrote: Does this warrant a 1.6.1? I'm actually quite stuck because of this bug This bug is impacting the most salient feature of ant 1.6.0, in the core of ant, so it is important. Do we want to fix other bugs in 1.6.1 ? What do you think ? Dominique : can you use a patc