On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:37:27 +1300, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 20:39, Martin Cooper wrote: > > This sounds like an enhancement request to me. Are you really > > suggesting that Chain should not be released until your specific > > enhancement is endorsed and incorporated into the component? I'm > > afraid I, for one, can't sign up for that. > > I think Matt's comment was entirely reasonable. The whole point of a 1.0 > release is to "freeze" the API. If the API isn't right, then people > certainly should speak up *before* the API freeze.
You're right, of course. > Of course it is better to speak up well before then if possible, but a > release proposal is bound to prompt people to get around to voicing that > concern they have had kicking around in the back of their mind for a > while. Anyone raising the prospect of a release should be expecting this > sort of thing. I was (over)reacting to exactly that. Chain was promoted out of the sandbox almost 6 months ago, so seeing such a fundamental change being proposed at this point was a bit like a bolt from the blue. Matt, I apologise for jumping down your throat. > It looks to me, as an outsider, like the concensus is that the existing > interface *is* ok, but as a commons committer I hope that everyone will > give it serious consideration, and not ignore it as "too late". It is > perfectly valid to change APIs before 1.0 (keeping compatibility is > *desirable* but not mandatory). It's certainly better than being stuck > with the wrong API post-1.0. Agreed. I have first hand experience of dealing with a poor API being exposed in a release... -- Martin Cooper > Regards, > > Simon > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
