On 08/19/2010 11:19 AM, Chet Hosey wrote:
Perhaps the tag could be given a "behavior" attribute
Note that there is the condition which lets you enforce a minimum version of Ant, but this is procedural rather than declarative so Ant cannot tell what
version of Ant your script expects to be us
Le 19 août 2010 à 17:19, Chet Hosey a écrit :
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Karsten Wutzke wrote:
>> +1 for giving up the policy of keeping stupid historical defaults. :-)
>> Seriously, it doesn't make sense for this issue to keep it. But I doubt this
>> will be realized.
>>
>> Karsten
>
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Karsten Wutzke wrote:
> +1 for giving up the policy of keeping stupid historical defaults. :-)
> Seriously, it doesn't make sense for this issue to keep it. But I doubt this
> will be realized.
>
> Karsten
Perhaps the tag could be given a "behavior" attribute t
+1 for giving up the policy of keeping stupid historical defaults. :-)
Seriously, it doesn't make sense for this issue to keep it. But I doubt this
will be realized.
Karsten
>We have a policy of keeping stupid historical defaults.
>
>Peter
>
>
>On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Jesse Glick wro
We have a policy of keeping stupid historical defaults.
Peter
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Jesse Glick wrote:
> On 08/18/2010 02:27 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>>
>> I would still guess that more builds than not DON'T need to compile
>> against Ant itself.
>
> Of course; at least an order of ma
On 08/18/2010 02:27 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
I would still guess that more builds than not DON'T need to compile against Ant
itself.
Of course; at least an order of magnitude more. But those that do will be *broken* if your suggested change is made, whereas those that don't get a *warning* curre
I agree with that entirely. It will be less effort for a few to adopt the new
Ant behavoir than annoy many. Furthermore, I believe many Ant newcomers will
think Ant or their dev setup is "broken" given that warning.
Karsten
>
>On Aug 18, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Jesse Glick wrote:
>
>> On 08/18/2010
On Aug 18, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Jesse Glick wrote:
> On 08/18/2010 12:31 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>> require those running such ancient buildfiles
>
> Unfortunately they need not be so ancient. I have come across more than one
> build.xml from an actively developed project which just assumed that s
On 08/18/2010 12:31 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
require those running such ancient buildfiles
Unfortunately they need not be so ancient. I have come across more than one build.xml from an actively developed project which just assumed that sources could be compiled
against org.apache.tools.ant.** wi
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:14 AM, wrote:
> Why does Ant warn me about this?:
> warning: 'includeantruntime' was not set, defaulting to
> build.sysclasspath=last; set to false for repeatable build
Historically, Ant always included its own runtime in the classpath
made ava
I forgot that I had this in mind, too! +1 for breaking backward compatibility
and require those who need the sysclasspath explicitly.
Karsten
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Matt Benson
Gesendet: 18.08.2010 18:31:51
An: Ant Developers List
Betreff: Re: warning: 'includeantruntime
: 18.08.2010 18:15:32
An: dev@ant.apache.org
Betreff: Re: warning: 'includeantruntime' was not set
>On 08/18/2010 10:14 AM, kwut...@web.de wrote:
>> Why doesn't Ant just default to false and just omit warning me about this
>> for every Ant build?
>
>That would be an
On Aug 18, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Jesse Glick wrote:
> On 08/18/2010 10:14 AM, kwut...@web.de wrote:
>> Why doesn't Ant just default to false and just omit warning me about this
>> for every Ant build?
>
> That would be an incompatible change. Some old build scripts may be
> intentionally compilin
On 08/18/2010 10:14 AM, kwut...@web.de wrote:
Why doesn't Ant just default to false and just omit warning me about this for
every Ant build?
That would be an incompatible change. Some old build scripts may be intentionally compiling sources against ant.jar (typically because they define Ant ta
On 2010-08-18, wrote:
> I'm writing because I didn't receive any answer when asking the
> following on the users mailing list:
> Why does Ant warn me about this?:
> warning: 'includeantruntime' was not set, defaulting to
> build.sysclasspath=last; set to fals
Hello,
I'm writing because I didn't receive any answer when asking the following on
the users mailing list:
Why does Ant warn me about this?:
warning: 'includeantruntime' was not set, defaulting to
build.sysclasspath=last; set to false for repeatable build
Is it importan
16 matches
Mail list logo
