I'm +1 on this (as in I want to help out after a fairly long awol
period) - let me know if you want me to do anything to lighten the
load Antoine
oh and rc label for this one sounds good too
Kev
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
Hi,
After the different discussions, I propose to build a distribution on
Sunday, November 5th.
The version returned by ant -version would be 1.7.0RC1 and the tag in
Subversion ANT_170_RC1.
After having built the distribution, I will upload it to my account on
people.apache.org and start a release
Hi,
I am pretty sure that Matt will rework my changes.
AbstractFileset#mergePatterns is called from Sync#removeOrphans, so I
could not remove it without changing sync.
Regards,
Antoine
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Do we w
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do we want to keep this method in AbstractFileSet :
> public synchronized PatternSet mergePatterns(Project p)
> Maybe there is something useful in it ?
If it has been added after 1.6.5, we can savely remove it. Any code
would
Hello,
Peter Reilly wrote:
>
> I have some pending work on classpaths in
Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:
Hi,
I have got the feeling that we are pretty close to releasing 1.7.0.
However I wonder whether we need a beta4 before, particularly due to the
change of refid handling since beta3.
I could free a slot for a next concrete release step on Sunday, November
5th.
1. I
On 10/26/06, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I have got the feeling that we are pretty close to releasing 1.7.0.
However I wonder whether we need a beta4 before, particularly due to the
change of refid handling since beta3.
I have some pending work on classpaths in
Thoughts ?
I think there have been enough changes since Beta3 to justify a Beta4.
I know users won't pick it up until it's out of beta officially, but
the changes could affect some things and we don't want to have 1.7.1
out a month later
Kev
