I understand your point Rob. But given your point of view, wouldn't it be sufficient for the README to simply say "download Ant 1.7 and…" without explicitly telling the user *not* to use Ant 1.8, which is suggestive of a particular problem with the newer version? You didn't tell them *not* to use Ant 1.9 yet either ;-) or… etc. It goes without saying when I read any instructions that references a particular version that that particular version works, and that there is no guarantee of anything else.
Is there anything preventing Ant 1.8 being the release we advise people to use? After all, Ant 1.8 was already on my Mac after I had grabbed dev tools extras; I'm not sure when I last explicitly installed it. JUnit and any other library is a non-issue since the build refers to particular versions. ~ David On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:02 AM, Robert Muir wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Robert Muir <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Michael McCandless >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I agree whenever we say "not version XXX" we ought to provide details >>> of why (and/or link to the Jira issue). >>> > > Finally, at least the junit problems were because in newer releases, > junit backwards-broke some apis. > > At any time, junit could do this again, and so could ant, if they like. > > So I don't see how there can be a jira issue predicting future events > like this, I think its better to clarify 'this is what we know works > exactly'. > > > -- > lucidimagination.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
