Great work Clebert. I know this was a long hard slog. I'm going to send a 2.0.0 HEADSUP later today. I'm really excited to get all the great stuff we've been doing on master into the hands of users.
I think now is a good time to revisit our documentation and examples to ensure everything is up to date. I'm going to spend some time on this today and tomorrow. On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > As you guys have seen, my work now arrived on master. > > Any further improvements now won't break any compatibility or anything. > > After this I think it's time to put something out and keep working on > master as usual. > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Clebert Suconic > <[email protected]> wrote: > > although maybe giving this power to the user may change certain > > semantics? things that are supposed to run fast could eventually take > > much longer. > > > > > > But the user would be in control. > > > > > > Dunno, that's splitting the conversation on the 2.x discussion already. > > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Clebert Suconic > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> The two properties are pretty straight-forward, and I personally don't > see how making them use the same time unit makes things simpler. Granting > such > >> > >> you're right.. I was just trying to understand Jiri's comment, and not > >> actually make an evaluation on the feature. > >> > >> <idea> If we were to make any changes, I would change all properties > >> that refer to time to also include the time unit on them. That way the > >> user would be more free to make any changes. </idea> > >> > >> > >> > >> Example: <timeout>5s</timeout> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Just an idea though! > >> > >> > >> > >> If not, I would keep it as is... as it wouldn't bring much value > otherwise. > > > > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic >
