On Nov 9, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Dominique Devienne wrote: > 2010/11/9 Nicolas Lalevée <nicolas.lale...@hibnet.org>: >> Note: I'll commit the unit test and doc I have wrote about this task. I >> don't want to enforce anything, just share the work I have done. It is still >> up to debate and can still be reverted. > > Well, process-wise we tend to discuss things out on the ML before > committing, or go thru the sandbox.
I wouldn't say that we are always RTC. For changes with potentially large impact, I personally have always gone ahead and opened up discussion beforehand because I didn't want a large changeset to come as a complete surprise. But a particular "expert level" task being added to Ant, I don't really have much problem with. I don't 100% see a use for it myself, and am pretty sure that if I did want it, it wouldn't be for simple build composition, but for some kind of parameterized situation. I guess I'm +0 to this task's inclusion. > As Stefan, I still don't quite see > the use case, or more precisely why the use case you describe can't be > achieved some other way. --DD > > PS: There's no enum-like type for onMissingExtensionPoint? Taking it > as a string allow passing anithing. +1 here. -Matt > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
