On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Ryan Boggs <rmbo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Stefan Bodewig > <stefan.bode...@freenet.de> wrote: >> On 2011-10-26, Ryan Boggs wrote: >> >>> Now that 0.91 final is out the door, I would like to start discussing >>> what items to work on in both NAnt/NAntContrib. Attached is an html >>> file of an outline I put together with thoughts about next steps I >>> have had for months (I put it in an attachment just in case your email >>> viewers don't handle html emails). >> >> Jumping in at some random point and as somebody who has a strong Ant >> background but doesn't really know NAnt as good as I should. >> >> I can't say much about your choice of SCM. Why do you feel >> Sourceforge's git offering was insufficient - this is an honest question >> as I may be thinking about moving XMLUnit to a different SCM myself >> (currently using svn at Sourceforge). > It just doesn't feel like there is alot of effort on the repo side in > terms of code reviews and other tools that sites like github have. > That being said, I've been toying with the idea about using of setting > up a git repo on SF to use as a mirror of source. I am also thinking > about keeping the CVS repo at SF live but readonly for historic > reasons. > > One thing I noticed from experience I have with github.com is that it > is much easier to share/review code from others than it currently is > on SF.
I'm giving a +1 to choosing git and github, in a large part because those two are popular and well known. And github's pull management is an awesome feature. >> >> We'll be polling log4net's users about platform support soon. I also >> feel you are safe to require 2.0 at runtime as long as you keep 1.x as >> targets. > I hope so. Agree here as well. Although this might (in future) mean quite a large rewrite of the NAnt API to make use of the generics. >> >> When I worked on the log4net release I cursed NAnt's lack of a <mapper> >> so a big +1 for this. I also miss <macrodef>. Badly. > I should add <macrodef> too, eh? >> >> Have you seen the 1.2.11 release of log4net of about two weeks ago? ;-) > I have not. I'll have to check that out. > > If activity has restarted for log4net like you say, I should take that > item off my list I just sent out. It was something I have had in mind > for months prior when log4net activity seemed non-existent. > > It took me awhile to get NAnt to use log4net 1.2.10 because of > sharpcvslib's dependency on log4net 1.2.9. Since I was recently > granted commit access to that project, I could see if I could upgrade > the dependency in both projects. Updating <nunit2> task will be tricky, especially if you want to keep it working on Mono as well. Any NAnt deployment that I'm aware of has resorted to using <exec> instead, because of compatibility problems between nunit dlls NAnt bundled and those that the project itself used. >From the low priority list: I'm quite fond of the NAnt website layout :-) And migrating to another license requires written permission from every past contributor - this would be a hard task to perform. Also, it might not provide any gain to end users - development tools don't usually need a permissive license, as they are not linked into the end product. Regards, Leszek 'skolima' Ciesielski ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev _______________________________________________ nant-developers mailing list nant-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
