commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <gudnabr...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [functor] Revisited?
Date Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:34:53 GMT

--- Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Matt Benson
> <gudnabrsam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >  --- James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >  > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Matt Benson
> >  > <gudnabrsam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >  > >  Good questions!  I suppose that's the thing
> to
> >  > do,
> >  > >  with the understanding that my pushing this
> makes
> >  > me
> >  > >  liable if I don't get off my ass and do
> what's
> >  > needed
> >  > >  to get that branch releasable, huh?
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > So, how will this work if we want to promote
> this
> >  > thing to the proper?
> >
> >  To be honest, I'm not sure why [functor] was
> never
> >  ready to graduate, but I intend to get a better
> idea
> >  of its true status during the next week or so...
> >
> >
> >  >  Do we promote based on the 1.0 code?
> >
> >  If for some reason the generics branch is ready
> before
> >  the 1.0, perhaps we can cross that bridge when we
> come
> >  to it?
> >
> >
> >  >  We can't do a
> >  > release out of
> >  > the sandbox, correct?
> >
> >  Correct.
> >
> >
> >  >  Or, does it even matter that
> >  > we'll have two
> >  > active branches (trunk and the non-genericized
> 1.0
> >  > branch) before
> >  > promotion?
> >
> >  I don't see that it really matters.  :)
> 
> I can't help thinking it would be better to just
> work on one copy
> initially (i.e. trunk) - review whats there and do
> as much work as
> possible before doing the generics stuff. Otherwise
> you're just going
> to be duplicating each other. I just noticed Matt
> added checkstyle
> rules to the branch - thats a good example of
> something that would be
> good to sort out only once.
> 

I've actually been thinking the same thing--if we get
other issues sorted out before adding generics code. 
I'm just trying to keep my personal desire for a
1.3-compatible release from infringing too much on
others who may not want it.  I actually don't have
much to gain from such a release, but a) you never
know what you'll need tomorrow/next week/year, and b)
I've yet to find anything in the codebase that says
IMMATURE! to me, so I don't see why we can't resolve
any issues fairly quickly.  If we're that close to
being able to provide a working implementation, why
shouldn't we?

-Matt

> Niall
> 
> >  >  This is somewhat of a weird situation.
> >  >
> >  Agreed.  :)  I specialize in those.
> >
> >  -Matt
> >
> >
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@commons.apache.org
> 
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No
Cost.  
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

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


Mime
View raw message