I think that classifer/clustering unification and documentation will go a long way towards the problems that I see remaining.
My guess is that a soft production policy regarding compatibility might be very useful for 1.0, merging towards a harder policy later. In that policy, additions to API's would be fairly acceptable if mitigated by mechanisms such as abstract implementations. It would be nice to have a fine-grained deprecation annotation scheme so that we can signal intentions about the future of different parts of the system. That would allow use to maintain just a little bit of cowboy in the right areas. We will also need to have some mechanism for a "labs" area that has much looser compatibility guarantees. On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > I myself already feel in this mode. Being more or less "done" with > recommenders I've tried to scrub away micro-level issues in the code. I'd > like to next lean on forcing the issue of deleting or using/updating some > code in limbo now, as my next contribution towards 1.0. > > Thoughts? >
