At 10:23 18/12/00 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote: >I want to see us exit this meeting with good solid proposals for how we are >going to continue into the future with these projects. I want to be able to >report to the Ant-Dev list a consensus about the general direction we should >take to move things further.
Be carefule how you put this. Look at the CVS tree and the people who have actually made patches against ant in say the last 2 months. I suspect you will be the lone committer who is at the meeting that you say aims "to report to the Ant-Dev list a consensus about the general direction we should take to move things further". Do you think this is appropriate ? ;) The ideas about Ant2.0 (at least the non-revolutionary ones) are easily accessible in archives. No real revolutionary ideas have been discussed (except for two latest proposals) so I am not sure what it is that you intend to come to a consensus about. >This of course will not be a final decision >because not everyone can make it, but I do want to get a group of people at >least pointed in one direction instead of the current mishmash of minds and >opinions. What makes you think that the current ideas about Ant2.0 product is a mishmash. I think the aims/designs are relatively clear - the implementation is completely fuzzy but there is little use hashing it out when only one of the developers who is proposing a revolution is present. Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
