incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: veto stuff (was: Code ownership)
Date Fri, 08 Nov 2002 01:05:22 GMT


Peter Donald wrote:

>>Changes to
>>Cornerstone were introcuced that broke James compatibility, but the war
>>was on and James didn't really matter
>>    
>>
>
>False. The James people were led to believe that compatability was broken and 
>were quite angry about it. However when it was explained to them what changes 
>had occured they realized that no backwards compatability had been broken. 
>There is one circumstance in which something could be broken and in that 
>situation there is a simple fix but James devs but that wasn't a problem for 
>them.
>
Pete:

As you have choosen to drag these issue up here - I am to some obliged 
to provide the information to complete the picture.  Perhaps it would be 
of interest to people to know that the changes to the Cornerstone 
components introduced by yourself (as a result of changes to Phoenix) 
resulted in non-backward compatible change.  A situation that you seem 
determined to ignore. You are happy when you can deflect this as a 
container issue - when in fact the issue is simply your mistake.  You 
replace Component + Block with nothing.  That breaks the interface. 
 That broke backward compatability.  There were subsequent discussions 
on the dev list that came to the conclusion that the re-introduction of 
the Component interface was the appropriate action.  That has never 
happended - could it be that your original veto was at fault?

:-)

Cheers, Steve.

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell

OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net




Mime
View raw message