--- 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]
