+1 Craig
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:28:21 -0800, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But why not just release 1.0? All but Matt seemed quite happy with > the current API, and as many folks including myself are using it in > production, I think we should stick to what has proven to work quite > nicely. > > Don > > > > > On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:57:07 -0500, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How about if we tag and roll a 0.2.0 "test build" now, so that we have a > > basis of comparison. > > > > There are applications in play now that are using Chain as it is, and this > > would give them something to use while we revisit the API. > > > > I think the last thing we want to do is consider significant API changes > > without rolling some type of release first. > > > > -Ted. > > > > PS - Can we keep a "[chain]" marker in any threads, including [VOTE] > > threads? It helps with the filtering. > > > > -T. > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
