> > 2. It should be easy for the user to get a "complete" working
> > version of Ant.
>
> IMHO we'd still have major releases consisting of Ant's core and
> antlibs.
I thought about a couple of ... subprojects?
- AntCore all basis things
- AntLib cvs all about cvs
- AntLib
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Jan Materne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then we´ll earn the whole inter-project-dependency-problems. We have
> to ensure that an AntLib works with all AntCore releases or fails
> with a defined error.
Yes, we'll need versioning.
> I see two things:
> 1. Plugging in AntLibs
ycles.
>
> Then we´ll earn the whole inter-project-dependency-problems.
> We have to ensure that an AntLib works with all AntCore
> releases or fails with a defined error.
>
Which means having some sort of version dependency infrastructure.
> I agree that breaking Ant into sev
e that an AntLib works with all AntCore releases or fails with a
defined error.
I agree that breaking Ant into several modules would improve the
development process, especially for the optional tasks. An AntLib for
the task implementation AND the correct version of the 3rd party lib.
But I see t
