gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <>
Subject Re: Fwd: failure notice
Date Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:49:54 GMT
On Tuesday 30 November 2004 21:32, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> At 03:39 AM 11/30/2004, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> anyway, the interesting thing is the problem I have fixing Velocity so 
>> Gump is happy ...

> Niclas Hedhman informed us of this problem. There was a conscious choice to
> remove the old RollingAppender and replace with something better.

Gump is just a fuzzy user ;o)
So irregardless of that, how come this mainly incompatible change is being 
made in a .x release? 
Wouldn't it be so much better to keep the old RFA still in there with a 
massive deprecated sign (possibly in the outputs as well), for one cycle?
Even better if the older one delegates to the newer one, but that is less 

As the HEAD now is, you are asking an enormous amount of people to make 
changes if they want to upgrade to a newer version, which on paper (if anyone 
ever believes the Dewey convention) says it is a compatible upgrade with more 

But, then again, I am perhaps too sensitive and lazy, to see the beauty of 
culling the class without warning.

  /       /
 / / 

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message