> As someone who wears a "build-master" hat (among others), I > can say this: > If there's some compelling reason to switch, it'll get done. IOW, if > there's something I really want/need with Ant2 that I can't > get from Ant1, > then I'll grab Ant2 and have at the build. Afterall, it > wouldn't be any > different than finding some wholly new tool that does > something better or > not available with the currently used tool and switching to that (eg., > scrapping an old Make process to switch to a slick new tool). > As long as > the pay-off is there, and the impact on the process end-users > is minimal > (eg., developers can still use the new process as easily, or > more so, as > the old one), it's not only not that big of a deal to re-work > things, it's > pretty much my job :)
Of course you are right (as always :-)). I'd do the same, beeing the "build-master" of a subproject ATM... Afterall the I still believe acceptance for Ant 2, IMHO, would be bigger, if the buildfiles and the task-API would be similar to the current one. Ok: I do very much trust in this community, because it's very careing for our Ant, so: Whatever the community will decide on, I'll definately support as good as I can! Good night everybody! Chris -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
