A.K.A. a fork.
OK so if A5 is important to Excalibur .. just do it.
In the meantime there is a process here in Avalon that takes into consideration migration and my impression is that the core comitters don't want to leap off into A5 but would prefer to engage in a graceful evolution.
Steve.
Leo Sutic wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:30:45 -0700, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Leo and others are always advertising/promoting "baby steps" and many of the vocal voices in this thread cherrish that basic concept, but now want to make a big break, effectively a fork.
What I'm advocating is a clean break which would allow you to take those baby steps in any direction you want, since you don't have to worry as much where you put your feet.
As for fork, well, any major change is in effect a fork. But consider it like this instead: You split Avalon framework into two forks: 4.x, which isn't going anywhere, and 5 which you can evolve as you see fit. They fulfill different needs. One could argue that it is 4 that is the fork, and 5 is the "head" one. "We forked it so it wouldn't change."
Just as people still use Linux 2.4.x despite 2.6.x, and the 2.4.x kernels are still updated, while 2.6 clearly is the future.
/LS
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
|---------------------------------------| | Magic by Merlin | | Production by Avalon | | | | http://avalon.apache.org | |---------------------------------------|
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
