I completely agree that the changes to the "1.0" release should be limited to bug fixes. Thanks, Sangjin
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Alan D. Cabrera > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> On Mar 18, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Mike Heath wrote: > >> > >>> Alex Karasulu wrote: > >>>> This is your specific situation right? I don't want to leave you > >>>> hanging > >>>> but we're really jumping head over heels to make one user > >>>> comfortable. I > >>>> think we paved the road for you to be able to achieve what you need > >>>> by > >>>> granting you karma to work directly on this code base. We're open > >>>> but need > >>>> you to provide a little bit of leeway so we can get everyone on the > >>>> same > >>>> base eventually. This move to M2 is a small step in that direction > >>>> and will > >>>> have all the Asyncweb modules which include this client on the same > >>>> MINA > >>>> dependency. > >>>> > >>>> See if you can push back a little to convince your employer of the > >>>> benefits. At the end of the day, aligning this this community will > >>>> be as > >>>> good for you and your employer as it will be for all of us. Let's > >>>> not be > >>>> myopic and loose out on gains in the future. Can you try to push > >>>> this for > >>>> the project? > >>> > >>> If AHC is working fine and is tested with MINA 1.1 in it's current > >>> state, I don't see any point to pushing to MINA 2.0 just for the > >>> sake of > >>> moving to MINA 2.0. If AHC has been tested and working well, I > >>> don't > >>> think we should disrupt that. > >>> > >>> If we move forward with a new client API as we've been discussing, > >>> this > >>> new implementation must be based on MINA 2.0 because the AsyncWeb > >>> codec > >>> is MINA 2.0 based. > >> > >> This reflects my sentiments as well. I think that it's worth nothing > >> that I it us my strongly held belief that everyone is committed to a > >> new and improved v2.0 AHC based on MINA v2.0 and that only patches > >> will be put in the AHC v1.0 branch. > > > > > > Very well I was looking for a compromise here but I don't have the > > time or > > wattage to keep discussing this. I spent a lot of time and energy > > to try to > > get you guys here to prevent a rift with these forks that would > > eventually > > hurt everyone in terms of productivity. > > > > Regardless just knowing that people are looking at the big picture > > for a > > unified Asyncweb is enough for me to trust that our eyes are on the > > future > > as well as the now. I trust that you all value the proper > > progression of > > this project so there's no reason for me to worry about it. > > Your motives make sense and are fair. I agree and will commit to > being vehemently opposed to anything other than bug fixes to this > proposed v1.0 release. > > > Regards, > Alan > > >
