Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 509800

Summary:	Consider moving up to Ant 1.9.8 (and possibly Ant 1.10.0)
Product:	[Eclipse Project] Platform	Reporter:	David Williams <david_williams>
Component:	Ant	Assignee:	Platform-Ant-Inbox <platform-ant-inbox>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:
Severity:	normal
Priority:	P3	CC:	daniel_megert, sarika.sinha
Version:	4.7
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Linux
See Also:	https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=499717
Whiteboard:

Description David Williams

2017-01-01 10:58:37 EST

I am opening this because I was hoping for the first bug of the new year :) but a quick search shows I did not make it. That honor goes to Wayne (bug 509799 	). 

= = = = 

I just happened to see that Ant released two new releases today: 1.9.8 and 1.10.0. 

A high-level description is at https://ant.apache.org/antnews.html

"The Apache Ant team currently maintains two lines of development. The 1.9.x releases require Java5 at runtime and 1.10.x requires Java8 at runtime. Both lines are based off of Ant 1.9.7 and the 1.9.x releases are mostly bug fix releases while additional new features are developed for 1.10.x. We recommend using 1.10.x unless you are required to use versions of Java prior to Java8 during the build process."

Currently, Ant 1.9.6 is shipped in the platform, so the move to 1.9.8 would be safest, picking up a few bug fixes. The most important are the few that prepare Ant to run on Java 9. 

For details, see release announcement on their mailing list: 
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ant-user/201701.mbox/browser

While they recommend moving to "1.10.x" I think that is a judgment call about "how far back" the Platform wants to support. Ant 1.10.x requires Java 8 to run and their release announcement (see above mailing list URL) lists other fixes that could "break older environments".

Comment 1 David Williams

2017-01-01 10:59:27 EST

CCing Dani for the "judgment call" part.

Comment 2 Dani Megert

2017-01-03 10:08:04 EST


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 499717 ***