DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28514] - Ant 1.6.1 and weblogic 8.1 ant tasks

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27411] - Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 29178] - InstantiationException with Ant 1.6.1 not with Ant 1.5.4

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29178 InstantiationException with Ant 1.6.1 not with Ant 1.5.4 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RE

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 29178] - InstantiationException with Ant 1.6.1 not with Ant 1.5.4

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29178 InstantiationException with Ant 1.6.1 not with Ant 1.5.4 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-06-25 13:33 --- Which jar files do you add to your CLASSPATH? I'm encountering the same problem with the 1.6.1 build (I haven't tried compi

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27411] - Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27411 Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-06-04 15:05 --- It doesn't seem like a duplicate for me. I have removed target attributes from my Ant scripts since then, and I have just upgraded to Jikes 1.21, so I am

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27411] - Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27411 Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-06-04 11:46 --- This is because Ant 1.5.x ignored the -target switch for jikes, see Bug 20580. I don't understand why your compilation fails for target 1.4, but this is

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 29178] - InstantiationException with Ant 1.6.1 not with Ant 1.5.4

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29178 InstantiationException with Ant 1.6.1 not with Ant 1.5.4 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-06-01 09:21 --- I have faced this pb with Ant 1.6.1 as well Could workaround it by adding %ANT_HOME%\lib to my CLASSPATH environment va

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 29178] New: - InstantiationException with Ant 1.6.1 not with Ant 1.5.4

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29178 InstantiationException with Ant 1.6.1 not with Ant 1.5.4 Summary: InstantiationException with Ant 1.6.1 not with Ant 1.5.4 Product: Ant Version: 1.6.1 Platform: PC OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity:

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28514] New: - Ant 1.6.1 and weblogic 8.1 ant tasks

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28514 Ant 1.6.1 and weblogic 8.1 ant tasks Summary: Ant 1.6.1 and weblogic 8.1 ant tasks Product: Ant Version: 1.6.1 Platform: All OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority:

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28206] - Ant 1.6.1: LogOutputStream.flush writes blank lines to console

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28206 Ant 1.6.1: LogOutputStream.flush writes blank lines to console [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RE

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 28206] New: - Ant 1.6.1: LogOutputStream.flush writes blank lines to console

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28206 Ant 1.6.1: LogOutputStream.flush writes blank lines to console Summary: Ant 1.6.1: LogOutputStream.flush writes blank lines to console Product: Ant Version: 1.6.1 Platform: All OS/Version: All

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27554] - StarTeam checkout optional task for ANT 1.6.1

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27554 StarTeam checkout optional task for ANT 1.6.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |1.6.2 --- Addi

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27554] - StarTeam checkout optional task for ANT 1.6.1

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27554 StarTeam checkout optional task for ANT 1.6.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RE

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27554] New: - StarTeam checkout optional task for ANT 1.6.1

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27554 StarTeam checkout optional task for ANT 1.6.1 Summary: StarTeam checkout optional task for ANT 1.6.1 Product: Ant Version: 1.6.1 Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows NT/2K Status: NEW Severity:

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27411] - Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27411 Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-03-03 21:32 --- I narrowed it down to the 'target="1.4"' attribute of . Take it out, and my projects compile with Ant 1.6.1. Put it back in, and I get comp

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27411] - Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27411 Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-03-03 18:02 --- I do not think that anything is missing, because this worked with the same Jikes (1.19) and Ant 1.5.2. If I switch to Ant 1.5.2 now, it still works :) This is my

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27411] - Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27411 Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-03-03 17:41 --- As long as your code doesnt depend on stuff on the classpath that is missing, all should be well. If you run the compile target with -verbose or -debug set

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27411] - Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27411 Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-03-03 17:07 --- I have changed my build.xml and eliminated the classpath as shown above, and instead I just added all Jars that I need to my system CLASSPATH. That did not f

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27411] - Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27411 Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-03-03 14:49 --- I have a lib dir with Jars that the app uses, so I just add them all to classpath like this: And then I have this insi

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27411] - Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27411 Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-03-03 14:33 --- I'm using Ant1.6 + jikes1.19; there must be another reason. 1. What is your build file? Particuarly, how are you setting up the classpath for

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27411] New: - Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19

gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27411 Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19 Summary: Ant 1.6.1 breaks with Jikes 1.19 Product: Ant Version: 1.6.1 Platform: Other OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority:

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: Moving to Ant 1.6.1 => UnknownElements galor!

Wascally Wabbit wrote: At 07:11 AM 2/19/2004, you wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your container class will need to check if the Task is > an UnknownElement and call perform on it to > convert it to a Task and to execute it. > (see apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.Seq

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 ke

Re: Moving to Ant 1.6.1 => UnknownElements galor!

At 07:11 AM 2/19/2004, you wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your container class will need to check if the Task is > an UnknownElement and call perform on it to > convert it to a Task and to execute it. > (see apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.Sequential) Hmm, the FAQ e

Re: Moving to Ant 1.6.1 => UnknownElements galor!

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your container class will need to check if the Task is > an UnknownElement and call perform on it to > convert it to a Task and to execute it. > (see apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.Sequential) Hmm, the FAQ entry doesn't say whether I can o

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 Ex

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 > (no

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

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 as very risky as it violates the expected response

Thanks! Was: Moving to Ant 1.6.1 => UnknownElements galor!

Thanks everyone; you've saved me much time. The Wabbit At 06:52 AM 2/18/2004, you wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your container class will need to check if the Task is > an UnknownElement and call perform on it to > convert it to a Task and to execute it. > (s

Re: Moving to Ant 1.6.1 => UnknownElements galor!

Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Your container class will need to check if the Task is an UnknownElement and call perform on it to convert it to a Task and to execute it. (see apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.Sequential) Peter, could you write som

Re: Moving to Ant 1.6.1 => UnknownElements galor!

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your container class will need to check if the Task is > an UnknownElement and call perform on it to > convert it to a Task and to execute it. > (see apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.Sequential) Peter, could you write something up for the FA

Re: Moving to Ant 1.6.1 => UnknownElements galor!

wondering if there's an easy explanation for this or...I'm looking at hours of crawling through the Ant 1.6.1 source x-| Any pointers would be greatly appreciated. I've not seen anything on the Ant 1.6 developers list about this (i don't think). Here's a typical stack t

Moving to Ant 1.6.1 => UnknownElements galor!

ze unknown elements and promptly die. Upgrading is my job for tomorrow. Sooo I'm wondering if there's an easy explanation for this or...I'm looking at hours of crawling through the Ant 1.6.1 source x-| Any pointers would be greatly appreciated. I've not seen anything on the Ant 1.

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 h

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

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

Ant 1.6.1 release / md5sum missing in the source distribution

Hi, I have received this email, and I can confirm that the md5sum files are missing for the *.tar.bz2, *.zip and *.tar.gz in the source directory. I do not understand why, I simply used the build.xml of ant and ran the distribution target, but the md5 sum files apparently did not get generated. A

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 > <http://

Ant 1.6.1 released

Apache Ant 1.6.1 is now available for download <http://ant.apache.org/bindownload.cgi> from http://ant.apache.org/bindownload.cgi The ASF Board has approved the new Apache License 2.0. For a copy of that license, please see http://www.apache.org/licenses/. The Ant 1.6.1 release is del

Re: [VOTE] Include the Apache 2.0 License in ant 1.6.1

Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: Do you want to include the Apache 2.0 license in ant 1.6.1 Yes [x] No [ ] Antoine I need another Yes from a PMC member to do it. Antoine +1 Costin - To unsubscribe, e-mail

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

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: [VOTE] Include the Apache 2.0 License in ant 1.6.1

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Antoine Lévy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I need another Yes from a PMC member to do it. Mine 8-) +1 Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTE

Re: [VOTE] Include the Apache 2.0 License in ant 1.6.1

Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: Do you want to include the Apache 2.0 license in ant 1.6.1 Yes [x] No [ ] Antoine I need another Yes from a PMC member to do it. Antoine - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional

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

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

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 ? 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 that. I did not vote yet

Ant 1.6.1 beta1 released

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, ant 1.6.1 beta1 is released. Apache Ant 1.6.1beta1 is now available for download <http://cvs.apache.org/dist/ant/v1.6.1beta1/>. The ASF Board has approved the new Apache License 2.0. For a copy of that license, please see http://www.apac

Re: [VOTE] Include the Apache 2.0 License in ant 1.6.1

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:39 am, Gus Heck wrote: > If it doesn't go in 1.6.1 won't we be forced to do a 1.6.2 or 1.6.1p1 or > something to update the licenses by March 1? Not quite. The next release after March 1 would need the updated licence. I don't think we'd be required to do a release purely

Re: [VOTE] Include the Apache 2.0 License in ant 1.6.1

If it doesn't go in 1.6.1 won't we be forced to do a 1.6.2 or 1.6.1p1 or something to update the licenses by March 1? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "If there is time enough for that modifications, ok. Otherwise we should wait for the next release (may it be 1.6.2)" But we should put the result of th

RE: [VOTE] Include the Apache 2.0 License in ant 1.6.1

> Yes [X] > > No [ ] "If there is time enough for that modifications, ok. Otherwise we should wait for the next release (may it be 1.6.2)" But we should put the result of this vote on the web site. Jan

Re: [VOTE] Include the Apache 2.0 License in ant 1.6.1

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:46 am, Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: > > Yes [x] > > No [ ] > "The board has mandated ..." so why wait? Conor - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [VOTE] Include the Apache 2.0 License in ant 1.6.1

On Jan 26, 2004, at 11:46 AM, Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: Do you want to include the Apache 2.0 license in ant 1.6.1 Yes [ ] No [X] There is no hurry to put this license in. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For

[VOTE] Include the Apache 2.0 License in ant 1.6.1

For time reasons, I will not be able to include the apache 2.0 license in the 1.6.1 beta on Thursday evening, but it can be in the final version. (A vote is normally opened 7 days according to the bylaws). Do you want to include the Apache 2.0 license in ant 1.6.1 * The Board has approved the

Re: [VOTE] ant 1.6.1

Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Antoine Lévy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is it OK to delay 1.6.1 by a week, putting : 1.6.1 beta on Thursday, Jan 29 th 1.6.1 final on Thursday, Feb 12th You have my +1 for delaying 1.6.1 to get the bugs fixed. One more thing on the release

Re: [VOTE] ant 1.6.1

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Antoine Lévy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it OK to delay 1.6.1 by a week, putting : > 1.6.1 beta on Thursday, Jan 29 th > 1.6.1 final on Thursday, Feb 12th You have my +1 for delaying 1.6.1 to get the bugs fixed. One more thing on the release process. Even if we

RE: [VOTE] ant 1.6.1

+1 Jose Alberto > -Original Message- > From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 20 January 2004 10:00 > To: Ant Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] ant 1.6.1 > > > Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: > > > > > > > There are 2 bug

Re: [VOTE] ant 1.6.1

Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: There are 2 bug reports which I would like to process for ant 1.6.1. (see footnotes) Is it OK to delay 1.6.1 by a week, putting : 1.6.1 beta on Thursday, Jan 29 th 1.6.1 final on Thursday, Feb 12th Is this OK ? +1 Peter Antoine Footnotes : [1] http

[VOTE] ant 1.6.1

There are 2 bug reports which I would like to process for ant 1.6.1. (see footnotes) Is it OK to delay 1.6.1 by a week, putting : 1.6.1 beta on Thursday, Jan 29 th 1.6.1 final on Thursday, Feb 12th Is this OK ? Antoine Footnotes : [1] http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26253

Re: ant 1.6.1

t-1.2.0 will be done in time for ant 1.6.1 and therefore we shouldn't update the ant manual just yet. I think the best procedure will be for commons-net to work at it's own best pace and when it's done, notify the ant list, via bugzilla and via posts to the ant-dev and ant-user

Re: ant 1.6.1

version of commons-net (1.2.0) has not yet been released but can probably be released in less than a week. It seems from this thread that these changes will come too late for ant 1.6.1. Please correct me if that's wrong. Can someone tell me what plans, if any, are contemplated for ant 1.6.2?

Re: ant 1.6.1

ask). > > > > Thus it will be possible to rewrite our task to solve these long > > standing problems. > > > > This version of commons-net (1.2.0) has not yet been released but can > > probably be released in less than a week. > > > > It seems from this thread

Re: ant 1.6.1

obably be released in less than a week. It seems from this thread that these changes will come too late for ant 1.6.1. Please correct me if that's wrong. Can someone tell me what plans, if any, are contemplated for ant 1.6.2? I'd prefer to target this as a 1.7 rework, as it wou

Re: ant 1.6.1

obably be released in less than a week. It seems from this thread that these changes will come too late for ant 1.6.1. Please correct me if that's wrong. Can someone tell me what plans, if any, are contemplated for ant 1.6.2? Steve Cohen Steve, thanks for your email. I have no problem

Re: ant 1.6.1

ess than a week. It seems from this thread that these changes will come too late for ant 1.6.1. Please correct me if that's wrong. Can someone tell me what plans, if any, are contemplated for ant 1.6.2? Steve Cohen On Thursday 15 January 2004 9:50 am, Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote: > Hi,

Re: ant 1.6.1

icial version? Thanks, Sean. Original Message: - From: Antoine Lévy-Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:50:04 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ant 1.6.1 Hi, do we want to make ant 1.6.1 next week ? I could release 1.6.1 on Thursday, Jan 22 in the evening (my usual

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

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

ant 1.6.1

Hi, do we want to make ant 1.6.1 next week ? I could release 1.6.1 on Thursday, Jan 22 in the evening (my usual 11pm to 12pm CET) do we need to make a beta before the release ? Antoine - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED

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