Same here. On Sunday, March 3, 2013, Benson Margulies wrote:
> As I see it, you are using the version number to communicate with the > tiny number of people who have made plugins that depend on Aether. > > I would rather see us use the version number to communicate with the > vast number of people who use Maven. > > So, I'd switch to Eclipse Aether, including the need to fork a few > plugins, as 3.2, and use the number 4.0.0 for a version that has real > user-visible impact and value. > > If you presented a long list of wonderful user-visible improvements > that would result from the adoption of the new Aether, I'd be happier > with your proposal. > > > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > > On Mar 3, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Mark Derricutt <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > >> A quick answer whilst I let my thoughts dwell on the full long post.. > >> > >> If we're jumping to a major release here, is this a viable time to also > update the schema and address of the things we've long been wanting there? > ( mixins of some form ) - or is this out of scope ( of this discussion at > least ). > >> > > > > To me it's out of scope. I want to get the API changes out there and > signal the potential of major API breakages. Features can be rolled out > whenever. To me the change in versions is to signal API breakage, not > feature addition. > > > >> Mark > >> > >> > >> Jason van Zyl wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> No one seems to object to doing a release with the SLF4J support > without the isolation so I wanted to discuss what happens when we integrate > Eclipse Aether and suggest an alternate release path. > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jason > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Jason van Zyl > > Founder & CTO, Sonatype > > Founder, Apache Maven > > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > the course of true love never did run smooth ... > > > > -- Shakespeare > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > > On Mar 3, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Mark Derricutt <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > >> A quick answer whilst I let my thoughts dwell on the full long post.. > >> > >> If we're jumping to a major release here, is this a viable time to also > update the schema and address of the things we've long been wanting there? > ( mixins of some form ) - or is this out of scope ( of this discussion at > least ). > >> > > > > To me it's out of scope. I want to get the API changes out there and > signal the potential of major API breakages. Features can be rolled out > whenever. To me the change in versions is to signal API breakage, not > feature addition. > > > >> Mark > >> > >> > >> Jason van Zyl wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> No one seems to object to doing a release with the SLF4J support > without the isolation so I wanted to discuss what happens when we integrate > Eclipse Aether and suggest an alternate release path. > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jason > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Jason van Zyl > > Founder & CTO, Sonatype > > Founder, Apache Maven > > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > the course of true love never did run smooth ... > > > > -- Shakespeare > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] <javascript:;> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] <javascript:;> > >
