On 16/04/2008, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Xavier Hanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  > So, what do you think? Shall we reconsider our objective for 2.0,
>  > and retarget some of the issues for a 2.0.x?
>
>  Comments from the peanut gallery:
>
>  There are certain categories of bugs that you can't really re-target,
>  those that would require API (both Java and XML) changes or those that
>  are critical and break existing use-cases of Ivy 1.x.
>

+1 for the XML, but -1 for the java API.
We discussed already in the past about 'publishing' our API [1].  I
think the API is now a way too complexe, and cleaning it would
requires a lot of effort.  I think we should warn our users that the
API may (and I hope will) change in the futur

[1] http://markmail.org/message/dm54bglzuvrsgddm

>  Then there are "nice-to-have" features or "can-be-worked-around" bugs.
>
>  You'll probably never get to any final release without accepting that
>  it will ship with issues of the later category.  Fix those of the
>  first category and call the result final, probably is the best way
>  forward.
>
>  Stefan
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


-- 
Gilles Scokart

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to