> Don't have time to reply ATM, but you have been a bit pricky on my term > usage. > I know what Avalon Framework is, I know that one thing is documentation > and code-implementation, I have written a GUI framework on top of it, I > know Cocoon since 1.7, and IMHO the way you have replied gives credit to > what I wrote. > > I was writing as a user, you have replied as an *Avalon* programmer ;-) > Bad luck, you scared me away; better luck next time ;-P
You write with a "[VOTE]" in the subject, to the development list, having committer status to avalon. I didn't figure out you were writing as a user. Even if I did, I would let it show <innocent blink/>, because others might not have figured it out. You stated more or less that avalon 4 is not stable. This is bad for avalon, for users of avalon, for me, my company. Thus my reply. It is vital to not have anyone think that avalon is not quite as stable as it claims to be. I recognize that avalon can use better documentation (I don't think more of it would really be very good - there's loads), but as your e-mail had a subject possibly indicating that avalon 4 is not "real stable", and your e-mail contains statements such as "stability was never seen in avalon" "I would REALLY like to see AF 5 be a big fat bugfix release" I hope you will forgive me for not mentioning that indeed our documentation is not very easy to digest and instead concentrating on indicating that these statements are unfounded. If you would just have said: "I would like to see avalon have better documentation", you'd get a "me too", and any patches/commits that'd provide such documentation would be very welcome (you'd get a "you rock"). call me pricky if you like =) regards, - Leo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
