Peter Reilly wrote:
Vote:
yes this is a good thing for 1.7 [ ]
no, let us stabilize 1.7[ X]
Please let us get 1.7 first,
Martijn
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [
Peter Reilly wrote:
yes this is a good thing for 1.7 [ ]
no, let us stabilize 1.7[X]
Looks promising - but take our time and put it in when it is ready. I
agree with Steve McConnell that class loader mutation is not something
we should encourage. If we have to do it for ant-*.jar o
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Vote:
> yes this is a good thing for 1.7 [ ]
> no, let us stabilize 1.7[ ]
I'm a *non-binding* -1 on doing this relative to 1.7.
This position is on the basis that I think that there is an fundam
On 9/4/06, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yes this is a good thing for 1.7 [ ]
no, let us stabilize 1.7[ ]
+0, since didn't fully follow the ClassLoader discussion, so can't
really yeah or nay this. Note though that I liked Jesse's idea of not
loading tasks by default,
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Vote:
> > yes this is a good thing for 1.7 [ ]
> > no, let us stabilize 1.7[ X]
> >
>
> I think right now I'm going to in the no category, though +0 rather
> than -1. This is not because I dont think its
On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 20:25 +0100, Steve Loughran wrote:
> Peter Reilly wrote:
> > Sorry for asking for another vote on the Classloader for ant issue,
No problem.
> I think right now I'm going to in the no category, though +0 rather than
> -1. This is not because I dont think its a good idea -I
Peter Reilly wrote:
Sorry for asking for another vote on the Classloader for ant issue,
but I think that the last vote was very half-hearted in slight support
of including the (new) classloader task. However, I think that there
was not enough support. In the meantime, I have
been looking at Jesse
