> On Sat, 2002-11-23 at 12:19, Cliff Woolley wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote: > > > > > > + * The 'modules/experimental' tree will evaporate soon. Anything > > > > + in the development branch should be located under it's eventual > > > > + home (such as modules/cache/.) > > > > > > There's no reason to remove this from the 2.0 releases. They are > > > experimental not matter way, and if someone grabs a 2.0 tarball and > > > wants to start hacking on experimental stuff, all the better! > > > > -1 to removing them from 2.0. The modules are 'experimental' not just > > because they are development projects, but more because we don't put the > > same level of faith in those modules working as advertised as we do in > > regular modules. But some people are willing to take the chance and DO > > use them in production! We can't just snatch them out from under those > > people. > > I agree: we should keep the experimental modules. > > The cache code is a good example of a beta-quality component > that's getting a healthy amount of testing and feedback from > users because it's available as an experimental subsystem in > the stable release.
Exactly. I see the same thing with the cache code. > > Brian > >
