You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ant.apache.org by Antoine Lévy-Lambert <an...@antbuild.com> on 2003/09/22 12:11:47 UTC
Ant 1.6
I have tagged the ANT_16_BRANCH (actually 2 hours before schedule, hope it
does not disturb anyone).
I am interested in the following next activities :
- sort out if possible the CLASSPATH issue by :
adding a -lib command line flag
this command line flag would be processed in Launcher, not in Main
and removed from what is passed to Main
the locations coming with -lib would be set ahead in the URL arrays used to
construct the loader created in Launcher.
The ant and ant.bat scripts will be changed so that :
LOCALCLASSPATH will not contain CLASSPATH anymore
CLASSPATH will be passed, if defined, with -lib $CLASSPATH (-lib
%CLASSPATH%) in the bat version
Does this sound OK ?
- remove the classloader from ant 1.6 simply by removing the corresponding
line from defaults.properties in the ANT_16_BRANCH (is this enough ?)
- get the beta build running afterwards.
Antoine
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
RE: Ant 1.6
Posted by Rob van Oostrum <li...@springwellfarms.ca>.
IMHO there's 2 possible triggers for branching off:
- it's time to run the build/release and you want to make sure you capture
the point at which this was done
- a critical piece of work that should not go into the build/release
absolutely has to go into CVS
so for practical reasons (i.e. having to double-commit a bunch of stuff) you
probably want to wait as long as possible from now on ... might even want to
consider hanging on to post-next-release patches until after the branch has
been created. On the other hand, double maintenance doesn't need to be all
that painful. Since everybody's used to using patchfiles anyway, why not
keep 2 checked out versions of Ant around (one on the branch, one on the
HEAD). Apply a patch to both and do a commit on both. I betcha it's every so
slightly quicker than the whole cvs merge thing.
just my CAD$ .02
Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Lévy-Lambert [mailto:antoine@antbuild.com]
> Sent: September 23, 2003 6:35 AM
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: AW: Ant 1.6
>
[...]
> I also think that branches add extra work, but sooner or later
> someone will
> have a new feature which can only go into 1.7 and not in 1.6. There is
> already <classloader/> which I have got to remove from the ANT_16_BRANCH.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
AW: Ant 1.6
Posted by Antoine Lévy-Lambert <an...@antbuild.com>.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Conor MacNeill [mailto:conor@cortexebusiness.com.au]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. September 2003 12:42
An: Ant Developers List
Betreff: Re: Ant 1.6
>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 04:13 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>
>> I remeber you've told me the same at least once in the past 8-)
>>
>Well, I don't like the inefficiency :-). It doesn't make sense to me to
branch
>and then do a whole lot of work to keep the branches in sync :-( Anyway,
I'll
>be merging across any changes.
I also think that branches add extra work, but sooner or later someone will
have a new feature which can only go into 1.7 and not in 1.6. There is
already <classloader/> which I have got to remove from the ANT_16_BRANCH.
Cheers,
Antoine
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: Ant 1.6
Posted by Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>.
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 04:13 pm, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> I remeber you've told me the same at least once in the past 8-)
>
Well, I don't like the inefficiency :-). It doesn't make sense to me to branch
and then do a whole lot of work to keep the branches in sync :-( Anyway, I'll
be merging across any changes.
I want to change the -lib handling a little.
Conor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
AW: Ant 1.6
Posted by Antoine Levy-Lambert <an...@antbuild.com>.
I would like to release ant 1.6 beta on tuesday next week (September 30th).
Can you all have your changes ready by then ?
Really what I would prefer is that all changes which should go into both 1.6
and HEAD get merged by the committer who does the change, so that I do not
have to do it myself.
I would like to have a serious look at 3 test cases which fail in my
environment Win2000/cygwin :
1) ReplaceTest : failing because cygwin cvs checks out the files with a \n
separator, but the multiline replacement introduces \r\n (just in the
replaced part, the rest of the file stays unchanged).
2) ModifiedSelectorTest : fails for me under cygwin, no idea yet why
3) ConcatTest : I also have the problem
Antoine
-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. September 2003 08:51
An: dev@ant.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Ant 1.6
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Steve Loughran <st...@iseran.com> wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> I'll stay away from HEAD for things that should go into 1.6 and let
>> Antoine merge it later.
>
> I am working the other way -against HEAD and then hoping on getting
> clearance from antoine before moving stuff into 1.6
Both approaches seem reasonable (mine probably only is for easy
bugfixes).
Antoine, what would you prefer us to do?
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: Ant 1.6
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Steve Loughran <st...@iseran.com> wrote:
> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> I'll stay away from HEAD for things that should go into 1.6 and let
>> Antoine merge it later.
>
> I am working the other way -against HEAD and then hoping on getting
> clearance from antoine before moving stuff into 1.6
Both approaches seem reasonable (mine probably only is for easy
bugfixes).
Antoine, what would you prefer us to do?
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: Ant 1.6
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@iseran.com>.
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>>IMHO, If we are going to branch then let's fix everything on the
>>branch and focus on getting 1.6 out the door. We then do one merge.
>
>
> I remeber you've told me the same at least once in the past 8-)
>
> I'll stay away from HEAD for things that should go into 1.6 and let
> Antoine merge it later.
I am working the other way -against HEAD and then hoping on getting
clearance from antoine before moving stuff into 1.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: Ant 1.6
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>
wrote:
> IMHO, If we are going to branch then let's fix everything on the
> branch and focus on getting 1.6 out the door. We then do one merge.
I remeber you've told me the same at least once in the past 8-)
I'll stay away from HEAD for things that should go into 1.6 and let
Antoine merge it later.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: Ant 1.6
Posted by Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 08:11 pm, Antoine Lévy-Lambert wrote:
> I have tagged the ANT_16_BRANCH (actually 2 hours before schedule, hope it
> does not disturb anyone).
>
The fact that every commit now involves a merge to 1.6 or vice versa would
indicate to me that this branch is too early.
IMHO, If we are going to branch then let's fix everything on the branch and
focus on getting 1.6 out the door. We then do one merge.
The piecemeal merges will make it hardder to do a single merge and also make
it more likely than something will be committed in one tree and not the
other.
Just MHO.
Conor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: Ant 1.6
Posted by Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>.
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:40 am, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Antoine Lévy-Lambert <an...@antbuild.com>
>
> wrote:
> > - sort out if possible the CLASSPATH issue by :
>
> What you propose would probably work.
>
> On the other hand, Launcher could give us a chance to break away from
> the "everything is on a single classpath, which is as good as the
> system classpath" architecture of Main that, I fear, won't scale.
>
> Add -lib will solve some problem, the same sort of problems that can
> be solved by not using Launcher but Main. I'm not sure whether it
> would prevent us from solving a different set of problems.
>
> All in all, I'm a bit neutral here as I fail to see all consequences.
>
I don't know if this will help with the CLASSPATH related issues but a -lib
option is a good idea, anyway. It allows you to use one or more library
directories without modifying the main Ant installation.
Conor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
AW: Ant 1.6
Posted by Antoine Lévy-Lambert <an...@antbuild.com>.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
Gesendet: Montag, 22. September 2003 16:41
An: dev@ant.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Ant 1.6
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Antoine Lévy-Lambert <an...@antbuild.com>
wrote:
>> - sort out if possible the CLASSPATH issue by :
>What you propose would probably work.
>On the other hand, Launcher could give us a chance to break away from
>the "everything is on a single classpath, which is as good as the
>system classpath" architecture of Main that, I fear, won't scale.
>Add -lib will solve some problem, the same sort of problems that can
>be solved by not using Launcher but Main. I'm not sure whether it
>would prevent us from solving a different set of problems.
>All in all, I'm a bit neutral here as I fail to see all consequences.
Making this change (-lib) will allow people using ant from the command line
to still see their usual commands or batches working.
For instance, there are some custom tasks for which some of the extra jar
files required can only be specified via CLASSPATH in ant 1.5.4 ... and not
at all with the current ant 1.6.
This does not prevent us from improving the ant class loading system.
>> - remove the classloader from ant 1.6 simply by removing the
>> corresponding line from defaults.properties in the ANT_16_BRANCH (is
>> this enough ?)
>I'd rather remove the class from the 1.6 branch.
OK, I did not know that it is possible in CVS to remove a file selectively
just from a branch. Will do this.
>> - get the beta build running afterwards.
>What is your opinion on bugs and enhancement requests in bugzilla?
>There is always one enhancement request or another that every single
>one of us would like to see integrated into the next release.
>Given last weekend's reports, I'd like to add a roundup attribute to
><zip>, which would address 17934 (two votes, at least).
>Where would you draw the line in the sand for enhancements? Bugs are
>always open unless you need a freeze to get a clean build, I assume.
I would like to get the first beta compiled on Thursday evening or at the
latest on Monday next week. (September 29th).
Antoine
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
Re: Ant 1.6
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Antoine Lévy-Lambert <an...@antbuild.com>
wrote:
> - sort out if possible the CLASSPATH issue by :
What you propose would probably work.
On the other hand, Launcher could give us a chance to break away from
the "everything is on a single classpath, which is as good as the
system classpath" architecture of Main that, I fear, won't scale.
Add -lib will solve some problem, the same sort of problems that can
be solved by not using Launcher but Main. I'm not sure whether it
would prevent us from solving a different set of problems.
All in all, I'm a bit neutral here as I fail to see all consequences.
> - remove the classloader from ant 1.6 simply by removing the
> corresponding line from defaults.properties in the ANT_16_BRANCH (is
> this enough ?)
I'd rather remove the class from the 1.6 branch.
> - get the beta build running afterwards.
What is your opinion on bugs and enhancement requests in bugzilla?
There is always one enhancement request or another that every single
one of us would like to see integrated into the next release.
Given last weekend's reports, I'd like to add a roundup attribute to
<zip>, which would address 17934 (two votes, at least).
Where would you draw the line in the sand for enhancements? Bugs are
always open unless you need a freeze to get a clean build, I assume.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org