On 3/5/06, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip/> > Now what happend? I was frustrated, and this feeling is still alive. Not > only due to the fact that this is not allowed, but also while it took so > long time to appear. > <snap/>
I understand some frustration that it look so many RCs to surface, but you shouldn't have any about it being "not allowed" -- I'd say the first thing to check when adding dependencies is things such as license compatibility, released status etc. But thats water under the bridge, maybe we can begin afresh thinking about a VFS 1.0. So, moving on to another email in this thread ... On 3/5/06, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > > I'd rather vfs depend on slide then to copy the classes over. > > > Yes, this is as it is now, but if slide didnt manage to release we will > never see a vfs release :-( > <snip/> There are other options too. Slide affects the webdav provider, compress affects the tar and bzip2 providers. Is there something that stops a VFS 1.0 with the rest of the providers (without these three)? Sure, it makes the 1.0 less than what we'd like it to be, but still probably better than waiting for slide (or some other foo release). -Rahul > --- > Mario > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
