Re: Branch
Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: In the long run, if maven becomes better at solving some issues like the release process (including the so called staged release process) we could build, stage and release ant using maven. what's the benefit ? for what purpose ? the benefit would be to use whatever the maven team develops to automate or semi automate releases. There's stuff underway in ivy to generate pom files from ivy descriptors; it could be the precursor to ant based release deployment. For those of us whose projects live mostly in the Ant space, not having to drop to Maven would only be a good thing. After all, if I can use maven for releases, why not use it from the ground up? Nb, we have used maven1 in the past to create some of the site docs for smartfrog, like the change log. We also use forrest. -steve - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Branch
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Antoine Levy-Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what I really have in mind is to setup ant's source tree so that you can build ant with maven with very simple POMs, which means one source tree per output jar file. I don't share this desire but won't stand in your way. If you want to do that you'll probably have some very good reasons. Like Peter I'd rather prefer to go back to a single jar, though. Also I don't really want to restructure our source tree just because of some tools weaknesses. This would not prevent us from keeping our build system with build.bat/build.sh bootstrap.bat/bootstrap.sh and build.xml Keeping booststrap.sh/.bat is a must. I - and I guess others as well - want to be able to build Ant with /bin/sh and a JDK, nothing else. Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Branch
Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: Hi, what I really have in mind is to setup ant's source tree so that you can build ant with maven with very simple POMs, which means one source tree per output jar file. This would not prevent us from keeping our build system with build.bat/build.sh bootstrap.bat/bootstrap.sh and build.xml but would allow to setup parallel builds using maven which would work fine. I'm sorry but I disagree. Certainly not dozen of source trees, it is a complete nightmare in term of management. In the long run, if maven becomes better at solving some issues like the release process (including the so called staged release process) we could build, stage and release ant using maven. what's the benefit ? for what purpose ? -- stephane - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Branch
Hello Stephane, Original-Nachricht Datum: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:58:26 +0100 Von: Stephane Bailliez [EMAIL PROTECTED] An: Ant Developers List dev@ant.apache.org Betreff: Re: Branch Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote: Hi, what I really have in mind is to setup ant's source tree so that you can build ant with maven with very simple POMs, which means one source tree per output jar file. This would not prevent us from keeping our build system with build.bat/build.sh bootstrap.bat/bootstrap.sh and build.xml but would allow to setup parallel builds using maven which would work fine. I'm sorry but I disagree. Certainly not dozen of source trees, it is a complete nightmare in term of management. OK In the long run, if maven becomes better at solving some issues like the release process (including the so called staged release process) we could build, stage and release ant using maven. what's the benefit ? for what purpose ? the benefit would be to use whatever the maven team develops to automate or semi automate releases. Antoine -- stephane - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Branch
Hi, what I really have in mind is to setup ant's source tree so that you can build ant with maven with very simple POMs, which means one source tree per output jar file. This would not prevent us from keeping our build system with build.bat/build.sh bootstrap.bat/bootstrap.sh and build.xml but would allow to setup parallel builds using maven which would work fine. In the long run, if maven becomes better at solving some issues like the release process (including the so called staged release process) we could build, stage and release ant using maven. We can already build ant's jars using maven, but our POMs are convoluted. Regards, Antoine Original-Nachricht Datum: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 04:52:33 +1030 Von: Stephen McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] An: \'Ant Developers List\' dev@ant.apache.org Betreff: RE: Branch -Original Message- From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For Ant 1.8, I have in mind some refactoring, like maybe splitting the source tree per jar. +1 Why? Splitting the source tree by moving things to antlibs is fine, but why split the source tree of pieces that we consider part of the core of Ant? Because the different jars typically have different dependencies. Cheers, Steve. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Branch
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Antoine Levy-Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also would prefer to wait a bit to create the ANT_17_BRANCH. fine with me. For Ant 1.8, I have in mind some refactoring, like maybe splitting the source tree per jar. Why? Splitting the source tree by moving things to antlibs is fine, but why split the source tree of pieces that we consider part of the core of Ant? Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Branch
-Original Message- From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For Ant 1.8, I have in mind some refactoring, like maybe splitting the source tree per jar. +1 Why? Splitting the source tree by moving things to antlibs is fine, but why split the source tree of pieces that we consider part of the core of Ant? Because the different jars typically have different dependencies. Cheers, Steve. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Branch
Matt Benson wrote: --- Antoine Levy-Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I also would prefer to wait a bit to create the ANT_17_BRANCH. For Ant 1.8, I have in mind some refactoring, like maybe splitting the source tree per jar. Documentation could also be split by theme such as property tasks, resource based tasks, SCM tasks rather than the current distinction core/optional which is not so nice. While we're on the subject, note that in Java6, script is no longer an optional task. ;) Interesting point. I've moved to vmware XP images to java6, and my laptop has jdk5 and 6 side-by-side. No plans to do java6 only stuff, but I may do some optional smartfrog components that use it (e.g tray notifier), plus some stuff to do network device analsysis. for ant, I'd like a secure password input by allowing an InputHander to be a SecureInputHandler which is expected to not echo chars on demand. the IDEs could add this, as could the java6 handler. -steve - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Branch
--- Martijn Kruithof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have we already created an ANT_17_BRANCH? Not that I know of. We did pretty well restraining ourselves from committing to HEAD just before the release. :) Should we wait on branching until nearer to 1.7.1, or until we know we want to put something in that should be for 1.8? -Matt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Branch
Matt Benson schreef: --- Martijn Kruithof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have we already created an ANT_17_BRANCH? Not that I know of. We did pretty well restraining ourselves from committing to HEAD just before the release. :) Should we wait on branching until nearer to 1.7.1, or until we know we want to put something in that should be for 1.8? -Matt I think we should create a branch as soon as the 1.7 version series stabilizes. (and only make things public that should be in 1.8 after the 1.7 series has become oficially stable) Martijn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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]
Re: Branch
Hello, I also would prefer to wait a bit to create the ANT_17_BRANCH. For Ant 1.8, I have in mind some refactoring, like maybe splitting the source tree per jar. Documentation could also be split by theme such as property tasks, resource based tasks, SCM tasks rather than the current distinction core/optional which is not so nice. If such refactoring happens, merging changes between two source trees which look different is a pain. Regards, Antoine Original-Nachricht Datum: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:05:12 +0100 Von: Martijn Kruithof [EMAIL PROTECTED] An: Ant Developers List dev@ant.apache.org Betreff: Re: Branch Matt Benson schreef: --- Martijn Kruithof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have we already created an ANT_17_BRANCH? Not that I know of. We did pretty well restraining ourselves from committing to HEAD just before the release. :) Should we wait on branching until nearer to 1.7.1, or until we know we want to put something in that should be for 1.8? -Matt I think we should create a branch as soon as the 1.7 version series stabilizes. (and only make things public that should be in 1.8 after the 1.7 series has become oficially stable) Martijn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Branch
--- Antoine Levy-Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I also would prefer to wait a bit to create the ANT_17_BRANCH. For Ant 1.8, I have in mind some refactoring, like maybe splitting the source tree per jar. Documentation could also be split by theme such as property tasks, resource based tasks, SCM tasks rather than the current distinction core/optional which is not so nice. While we're on the subject, note that in Java6, script is no longer an optional task. ;) -Matt If such refactoring happens, merging changes between two source trees which look different is a pain. Regards, Antoine Original-Nachricht Datum: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:05:12 +0100 Von: Martijn Kruithof [EMAIL PROTECTED] An: Ant Developers List dev@ant.apache.org Betreff: Re: Branch Matt Benson schreef: --- Martijn Kruithof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have we already created an ANT_17_BRANCH? Not that I know of. We did pretty well restraining ourselves from committing to HEAD just before the release. :) Should we wait on branching until nearer to 1.7.1, or until we know we want to put something in that should be for 1.8? -Matt I think we should create a branch as soon as the 1.7 version series stabilizes. (and only make things public that should be in 1.8 after the 1.7 series has become oficially stable) Martijn - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Branch
On 12/22/06, Antoine Levy-Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I also would prefer to wait a bit to create the ANT_17_BRANCH. For Ant 1.8, I have in mind some refactoring, like maybe splitting the source tree per jar. I would prefer to remove the large number of jars. The original reason for the split was to help people with classloading issues. The idea being that one could move the for example ant-junit.jar file out of $ANT_HOME/lib, and do a taskdef with this file and its needed third party files. This has not worked out in practice. The better way is that done by jesse for the junit task - using a split loader. I think that we can do this for most of the tasks that depend on third party jars. - I am near ready to commit the changes needed for script and bsf.jar Peter Documentation could also be split by theme such as property tasks, resource based tasks, SCM tasks rather than the current distinction core/optional which is not so nice. If such refactoring happens, merging changes between two source trees which look different is a pain. Regards, Antoine Original-Nachricht Datum: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:05:12 +0100 Von: Martijn Kruithof [EMAIL PROTECTED] An: Ant Developers List dev@ant.apache.org Betreff: Re: Branch Matt Benson schreef: --- Martijn Kruithof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have we already created an ANT_17_BRANCH? Not that I know of. We did pretty well restraining ourselves from committing to HEAD just before the release. :) Should we wait on branching until nearer to 1.7.1, or until we know we want to put something in that should be for 1.8? -Matt I think we should create a branch as soon as the 1.7 version series stabilizes. (and only make things public that should be in 1.8 after the 1.7 series has become oficially stable) Martijn - 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]
