> From: "Jon Skeet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > No one is advocating to sell (or promote it) as ANT2. It is > > > just ANT1 Version 2.0. > > > ANT2 is a project, a code name if you want. > > > We should not confuse that with release numbers. > > > > Does that mean you're happy with Sun's naming of "Java2" as meaning > > "JDK1.2 or higher"? It's caused a lot of confusion to others, and I > > think we'd see similar confusion if ANT2 isn't Ant V2.x. > > So, what you are saying is that: had we refered to ANT2 as > "NEW ANT" or > "ANT-NG(next generation)" or "FIRE-ANT" or whatever else, it > would had been fine, but just because more than a year ago we > started using ANT2 as the moniker > for "the new ANT architecture" then we are now stuck on 1.x > until we deliver that.
Pretty much, yes. Then again, I'm glad it's called ANT2 anyway. I think major version changes should be just that *major*. I don't see anything wrong with sticking with 1.x for the moment. > Does this really makes any sense? What is there for advance > research, do you mean to say that an Apache group cannot think > on two or three product generations for now? > Are we condemed to only look one major release ahead? Well, they can do research with random codenames, of course, but I think when things start becoming more concrete, it makes sense to assign a version number. > If the arguments were that the "Rearchitected ANT" can be out > soon and that the list is ready to make it happen quickly, then I > may agree or disagree but understand the possition, but to object > because of what in escense is PR, I really really think it is sad. I'm objecting because of *confusion*, not because of PR. I've seen how much confusion the Java2/1.2 issue has caused, and I'd rather avoid it with Ant. All this is just random opinion though, and should be taken with a healthy dose of not-caring-less :) Jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
