How about moving all SCM and EJB tasks into Antlibs?

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

Hi all,

I'd like to move those tasks (see subject) that don't get tested but
released with Ant into separate Antlibs and deprecate them in trunk.
My current candidate list consists of all SCM tasks (including CVS)
and all vendor specific EJB tasks - one Antlib per task (or family of
tasks in the case of CVS).

Of course we couldn't deprecate the tasks in trunk unless the
corresponding Antlib has been released.

Before I start doing the work I'd like to get a feel for whether you
agree that it is a good idea and whether you'd be willing to vote for
a release of such an Antlib.  Kevin tried to do something like this
for the VSS Antlib and failed, so before I put any work into it, I'd
like to be sure, it wouldn't be wasted.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org

Re: How about moving all SCM and EJB tasks into Antlibs?

[Kevin Jackson <fo...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

> I'd like to move those tasks (see subject) that don't get tested but
> released with Ant into separate Antlibs and deprecate them in trunk.
> My current candidate list consists of all SCM tasks (including CVS)
> and all vendor specific EJB tasks - one Antlib per task (or family of
> tasks in the case of CVS).
>
> Of course we couldn't deprecate the tasks in trunk unless the
> corresponding Antlib has been released.
>
> Before I start doing the work I'd like to get a feel for whether you
> agree that it is a good idea and whether you'd be willing to vote for
> a release of such an Antlib.  Kevin tried to do something like this
> for the VSS Antlib and failed, so before I put any work into it, I'd
> like to be sure, it wouldn't be wasted.

I'd vote for this, but I'd also like to get 3 maintainers on board for
the VSS antlib too :)

Kev

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org

Re: How about moving all SCM and EJB tasks into Antlibs?

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Remie Bolte <re...@backbase.com> wrote:

> Will those antlibs be bundled with the package, or do picture them
> as a separate download?

I'd make them a separate download, even though we might consider doing
a "ant with all antlibs" download in addition to a stripped down core.

The first version without those tasks would be Ant 1.9.x since 1.8.x
would still ship the then deprecated task.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org

Re: How about moving all SCM and EJB tasks into Antlibs?

[Remie Bolte <re...@backbase.com>]

Hi,

Will those antlibs be bundled with the package, or do picture them as a
separate download?
Reason I ask is because I think SCM tasks are commonly used in buildscripts.

Cheers,

Remie


On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to move those tasks (see subject) that don't get tested but
> released with Ant into separate Antlibs and deprecate them in trunk.
> My current candidate list consists of all SCM tasks (including CVS)
> and all vendor specific EJB tasks - one Antlib per task (or family of
> tasks in the case of CVS).
>
> Of course we couldn't deprecate the tasks in trunk unless the
> corresponding Antlib has been released.
>
> Before I start doing the work I'd like to get a feel for whether you
> agree that it is a good idea and whether you'd be willing to vote for
> a release of such an Antlib.  Kevin tried to do something like this
> for the VSS Antlib and failed, so before I put any work into it, I'd
> like to be sure, it wouldn't be wasted.
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
>

Re: How about moving all SCM and EJB tasks into Antlibs?

[Bruce Atherton <br...@callenish.com>]

I like the concept simply because it seems like the best way to get old, 
mostly unused ant tasks out of the standard release. I'm not so 
concerned about moving the tasks that are commonly used out of optional 
to their own antlibs (though I have no objection to it) because I can't 
see there being a separate release cycle for these tasks. They just 
don't seem complex enough to justify the overhead. So all that moving 
the commonly-used tasks will accomplish is to slightly lessen the 
download size of the standard ant for a few people while increasing the 
number of different file downloads required for others.

The trouble with moving the lesser-used tasks, though, is the issue that 
Kevin pointed out. Once something becomes so unused that it justifies 
this treatment, it is unlikely to be supported by enough committers to 
make the transition possible.

I don't have a good answer for this chicken and egg problem.

Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> OK, I consider the answer to be "no, let's keep them in Ant main."
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
>   


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org

Re: How about moving all SCM and EJB tasks into Antlibs?

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

OK, I consider the answer to be "no, let's keep them in Ant main."

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org