On 16/04/2008, Stefan Bodewig <
bodewig@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Xavier Hanin <
xavier.hanin@...> wrote:
>
> > So, what do you think? Shall we reconsider our objective for 2.0,
> > and retarget some of the issues for a 2.0.x?
>
> Comments from the peanut gallery:
>
> There are certain categories of bugs that you can't really re-target,
> those that would require API (both Java and XML) changes or those that
> are critical and break existing use-cases of Ivy 1.x.
>
+1 for the XML, but -1 for the java API.
We discussed already in the past about 'publishing' our API [1]. I
think the API is now a way too complexe, and cleaning it would
requires a lot of effort. I think we should warn our users that the
API may (and I hope will) change in the futur
[1]
http://markmail.org/message/dm54bglzuvrsgddm> Then there are "nice-to-have" features or "can-be-worked-around" bugs.
>
> You'll probably never get to any final release without accepting that
> it will ship with issues of the later category. Fix those of the
> first category and call the result final, probably is the best way
> forward.
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail:
dev-help@...
>
>
--
Gilles Scokart
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail:
dev-help@...
