--- Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Matt Benson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (edited for brevity) > > See: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=109352312700007&r=1&w=2 > > (particularly DD's response) > > and > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=ant-dev&m=109882328509244&w=2 > > So you are saying that Ant committers have finally > understood that > dependency management should be a core issue to Ant? > When Russell first brought his dependencies task to the table, I reiterated the general policy regarding the introduction of new tasks, especially where they interacted with software other than Ant (aka optional tasks). Unless I have misunderstood it dependencies is more Maven-centric than <repository> so I feel that position was applicable. DD agreed that this had been a guiding principle but asserted that with time would come the need for a task of this particular type and lo, Steve began working on his task presumably within the next two months. So I suppose that chain of events would suggest that the answer to your question is "yes", though "finally understood" makes the Ant committers sound like a bunch of dinosaurs. ;)
> No, I'm not saying that. > Were you answering your own question there? > I do agree that any mechanism of dependency > downloads could make > antlib handling easier. > Feels like some interesting possibilities, yes. -Matt > Stefan __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]