At 11:30 18/12/00 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote: >on 12/18/2000 10:59 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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 ? ;) > >So, are you saying that you don't want to meet?
I am saying I can't ;) From where I am in the world it would cost me about $2500 to get to US and back + expenses. I assume this is the same for Connor aswell as he also lives in Australia (unless he can swindle it on Company time ;]). Whether other contributors - Stefan looks like hes from germany ???, Glens from Canada?? and Sam Ruby look slike he is from the US can afford the trip should also be considered. While you may not intend to exclude others you do by virtue of location - I really don't know of anything that wouldn't be better discussed on lists. Closed doors and exclusive access is not good for opensource IMHO ;) >> 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. > >"(except for two latest proposals)" > >Are you just ignoring those then? No but I don't think kicking about ideas will be enough - at least for AntFarm. It is something that requires examining use case. While this may be doable in a meeting place it would be better served if people went out and examined their own build files and how it would be useful/unuseful in those cases. In which case it is as easy to communicate to the list as it would be in person. It would be unfortunate if the rest of us were to miss out on the input because it wasn't distributed to us. >At this point, with the hundred page emails of everyone saying 50 different >things, I'm not sure how that is clear to anyone. look back to the archives then ;) >> 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. > >Ok, where is a single clear well defined functional specification for Ant >2.0 that everyone agrees on? Sorry, I missed it.
