At 01:16 26/1/01 +1100, Conor MacNeill wrote: >I think the suggestion that these files are unmaintainable or brittle is >questionable. If we look at the CVS activity on these files after July >(when I rewrote most of them) up until the recent changes we have
but thats only because people work around the build files instead of integrating them into their build process. The fact that I have to have extra wrapper scripts so ant will build is kinda indicative of this. >I presume you are not suggesting doing away with ant.bat and so, the only >other script with any meat it was the bootstrap script. I wouldn't have >called it a "forest of mangled scripts". as I said it doesn't support both a low barrier of entry (my concern) and a custom build environment (your concern). Thats why it is less painful atm. >What do we go now? I am getting uncomfortable about the churn in the build >process as we run up to a new release. I would vote to roll back the >scripts but look at retaining the build.xml changes for the new build >locations, etc. Yer screw it ;) I don't think everyone will be happy so we may aswell roll back till Ant2.0. 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 | *-----------------------------------------------------*
