Hi,
I am fine with the current code base. In fact, I never experienced the
need for target-group(s), but I can imagine myself using them if they
are available.
Regards,
Antoine
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
before we get carried away with naming discussions ...
Currently I don't feel there is consensus of what we'd like to see with
target-group (if anything at all). The options I see are
* have some sort of composite of targets that other targets can add
themselves to
* have some special construct that has a depends list similar to
target. targets can depend on such a construct and add themselves
to the depends list (the current code base).
* allow targets to add themselves to the depends lists of any other
target
* allow targets to add themselves to the depends lists of targets that
in some way mark themselves as being open for such extensions
* no target-group like construct at all
* something completely different?
What is your preference?
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
