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]
