On a related note, while I'm thrilled to see more and more people using Ant, I'm worried that we keep adding subtle variations of the same thing just to meet a specific need. Look at the number of variations of "available" that have been proposed in recent weeks, or the variety of logger issues, as just two examples.
Or, someone submits a patch to add functionality that is already there, they just didn't know it. I believe the committers are doing a good job of screening out duplicate work, but I still fear that if we, as a group, aren't careful, we'll end up with a 10,000 lb gorilla that can do the same thing 30 different ways, but can do anything well or efficiently. Ant started out as a lean, mean, building machine, and I hope we keep it that way rather than burdening it with every subtle variation under the sun. Some things belong IN ant, and some things belong in the surrounding infrastructure in which ant is used. We have to be careful to keep the line between the two clean. Well, enough soap box.... Diane Holt wrote: > > --- Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not that keen on this change. I prefer things to be explicit and not > > to go implicitly wandering up the filesystem trying to find a build > > file. > > I agree. (I'm not a voter, tho, just a user.) I can already run 'ant' from > anywhere in my source-tree and have it do the right thing -- my > wrapper-script just 'cd's to the root of the current workspace (as defined > in the user environment) before the java call to ant. > > Diane > > ===== > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com/
