NOTICE: Moving this part of the thread over from the PMC list. Since Stephen suggested it, I assume he is fine with me quoting his previously PMC-posted messages.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Oh please - lets focus on facts. The complete framework documentation > is under the site. Not true. The documentation is not complete. I've already pointed this out in earlier emails. I'm not going to rehash it here. > This noise is not about any technical issue - it is > about positioning. Yes, some of it is about "positioning." It is about not positioning our users into the garbage bin. It is about not throwing away all the old documentation and work others have done. It is about respecting the voices of our users and peers. > Let's cut to the chase - the framework is evolving > and will evolve further. Yes. All the more reason a large version jump would help free us up to do so. > If you want to discuss that evolution - fine - > but don't frame it in artificial constructs of 4 versus 5 because > those constructs are pure technical constructs. Stephen, how about I cut straight to the chase. Do you have ANY idea just how incredibly hard it has been to develop for Merlin? I've been trying to get a whole platform out the door here at Sony and was held up for MONTHS because of the huge changes between Merlin 3.0 and Merlin 3.3. Sure, some components would keep working, but the deployment process on the hundred or so machines I administered was completely different. Specific enhancements to the container and the use of lifecycle extensions were completely changed. Let's just say it's been a horrible process and hard to justify staying with Avalon or Merlin. Versioning is important. It's important that I can pick a particular version and stick with it and not have to worry about upgrading if I don't want to. Documentation should be available, even if it's moved around a bit. And if I do upgrade, there should be clear documents about what changed. We've done a _horrible_ job of that here in Avalon. Look at our release notes. What? No release notes? No change log? No complete list of patches and contributors and migration directions? Leaving Avalon 4 alone as a stable platform allows our users to stay with something they know and have invested time in. Changes need to be very well documented and very clear. The matter of constructor injection was NOT made clear. Thus we made a mistake. Let's correct it. > Not sure what your getting at .. as far as I am concerned the matter > of version is a technical concern - not a political one. To turn it > into a political topic is in my opinion just plain stupid. Then we have a difference of an opinion. Those differences apparently include: 1. What changes were actually "official" in the Framework 4.2 release. 2. What changes should constitute a major version bump to Avalon 5. 3. How we should handle the traditional Framework library. I don't believe either of our opinions are invalid and I don't think any of them are "stupid." So, how about we continue to try and work this out, okay? J. Aaron Farr SONY ELECTRONICS STP SYSTEMS (724) 696-7653 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
