Re: sync FileUtils

2005-01-26 Thread Peter Reilly
The close methods are also new. No problem with syncing to ant 1.6.3, just (as mentioned) remove the "deprecated" flags. Peter Matt Benson wrote: There is a lot of stuff in FileUtils that is marked for Ant 1.7 but that is already in use in Tasks that have small changes that would be good 1.6.3 cand

Re: sync FileUtils

2005-01-26 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt Benson wrote: >> Does anyone object to my (changing 1.7 to 1.6.3 in >> code) sync the 1.6 branch to HEAD? It will make it >> much easier to sync other changes over from HEAD and >> doesn't appear to carry a lot of risk. > > I'm

Re: sync FileUtils

2005-01-25 Thread Steve Loughran
Matt Benson wrote: --- Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [SNIP] I'm +1 to the changes, except that the non-static stuff should not be marked as deprecated in the 1.6 branch. [SNIP] So we should pre-deprecate them, i.e. "This will be deprecated in a future version."? ;) yeah, something lik

Re: sync FileUtils

2005-01-25 Thread Matt Benson
--- Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [SNIP] > I'm +1 to the changes, except that the non-static > stuff should not be > marked as deprecated in the 1.6 branch. [SNIP] So we should pre-deprecate them, i.e. "This will be deprecated in a future version."? ;) -Matt _

Re: sync FileUtils

2005-01-25 Thread Steve Loughran
Matt Benson wrote: There is a lot of stuff in FileUtils that is marked for Ant 1.7 but that is already in use in Tasks that have small changes that would be good 1.6.3 candidates. The FileUtils changes in question (I may have missed some): static getFileUtils() method (Martijn) files comparison ig