At 01:01 14/11/00 +1100, you wrote: >Duncan, > >Whilst I am happy to have an ant revolution, I wonder whether we need it. If >we all agree on a direction with regard to ant 2.0's objectives, we can move >forward without a revolution. I'm not saying that we wouldn't want some >revolutionary code and architecture changes and perhaps some unusual >instability in ant. > >If I look at the revolution in Tomcat, I can see that it is still a source >of much tension in the tomcat-dev list. A revolution provides an opportunity >to split the community. We should only have that if it is really necessary. >If we have a revolution and everyone moves over to work on it, then why have >a revolution :-) ? If we have disagreement then yes, a revolution may be >required. Perhaps we should wait to see whether these is such disagreement. >>From the list you posted, I feel there will be broad agreement. > >What do you think?
I think that the reasons for revolution would mainly be because it will be breaking backwards compatability which is a PITA but necessary IMHO. As the the architecture will change significantly then it is unreasonable to expect end users to use ant with it constatly changing. Cheers, Pete *------------------------------------------------------* | "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want | | to test a man's character, give him power." | | -Abraham Lincoln | *------------------------------------------------------*
