sling-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Radu Cotescu <r...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Sling Scripting Core 2.0.60
Date Mon, 21 Oct 2019 09:59:53 GMT
Hi Olli,

Sorry for getting back so late, but I was on holiday for the last 3 weeks and I really wanted
to disconnect from work-related emails.

> On 27 Sep 2019, at 19:37, Oliver Lietz <apache@oliverlietz.de> wrote:
> 
> On Friday, September 27, 2019 5:21:03 PM CEST Radu Cotescu wrote:
>> Hi Olli,
> 
> Hi Radu,
> 
>>> On 27 Sep 2019, at 11:20, Oliver Lietz <apache@oliverlietz.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Please vote to approve this release:
>>> [ ] +1 Approve the release
>>> [ ]  0 Don't care
>>> [ ] -1 Don't release, because …
>> 
>> I would have loved to spend more time on [0] before cutting a release. It
>> feels like the implementation was rushed,
> 
> Why do you think so? Can you explain?
> The current implementation is the minimal to start with and was carefully 
> added. The new feature doesn't change the existing behavior and doesn't expose 
> a new public API.
> The TODO mentioned by Stefan explains the design. More implementation - taking 
> language version and engine into account - is still missing because I'm 
> investigating on a semantic version parser *and* there is most probably no 
> demand (I'm not aware of an engine supporting more than one language version 
> properly).
> 
> As you might have noticed I improved the scripting documentation and I'm still 
> in the process to consolidate the additional documentation from our wiki into 
> our site. Once done I will document the new feature coming with SLING-4330.
> 
> Regards,
> O.
> 
>> Thanks,
>> Radu
>> 
>> [0] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-4330
>> [1] - https://sling.apache.org/documentation/bundles/scripting.html
> 

I was not against the release and the reason for my previous statement is that you mentioned
on the JIRA issue [0] that we would talk on the dev list about the requirements of such an
addition. However, I didn’t see any thread about it.
Your code works as it should and is properly tested, so there’s absolutely nothing wrong
with it. I guess I just wanted more eyes on the solution and a more open discussion.

Regards,
Radu


Mime
View raw message