Peter Donald wrote:
> Avalon has still in minds of many a bad name about the heavy > refactorings it did years ago. Avalon is stable, works well, but still > developers remember what happened back then. I don't want this to repeat.
Avalon is stable? Things like the following indicate otherwise:
http://cvs.apache.org/builds/gump/2002-12-02/jakarta-avalon-phoenix.html
Nah - that indicates that people don't consider gump a high priority.
And exactly what message do you think that sends?
If the message produced was an indication that the gump descriptor was incorrect, then I might be inclined to concede the point, but what I see is an indication that something is out of synch between the framework and phoenix.
Gump is just a tool. To me, the output it produces is an indicator of how much the development team cares about stability and backwards compatibility. In particular, is it a part of the daily thought process, or something that *may* be tacked on as a consideration at the end of the development process?
- Sam Ruby
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
