> But we started using the name ANT2, what a year and a half ago? > As far as I know there is no concrete architecture design that has > been voted, the only thing done is a list of features we would like > (more or less). That can hardly be catalogued as CONCRETE. > > The only design is whatever Donald has done which I have never > seen it been discussed at any length or in detail. Are all > the committers > happy with his design? Do you all understand and are ready to > approve it? I am not trying to pass judgement on the code, but > can we say we have things CONCRETE?
Perhaps not. I suspect "we" (I use the term loosely :) started using the term too early, to be honest. Maybe codenames would be better in the future. All I'm really concerned about is not confusing people - and I think if we come up with Ant v2.0, people will start to think it's the thing that's been talked about as ANT2, and understandably so. Do you disagree with that part, or just the general philosophy? Jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
