Hello,

I do agree with everyone who says "anyone using a pre-release is taking a
risk"
but I also I agree with Trustin that we should try to avoid hurting our
users.

In principle:  yes, just do these radical changes in 2.0 since we haven't
gone to RC yet.
BUT in practice it's a trade-off:
* how much trouble would we inflict on users that are already using MINA 2.0
* how much trouble would it cause us to maintain 2.0 and 3.0

I guess we can stop supporting 1.x as soon as 2.0 GA is released ?

AFAICS, work on mina 2.0 started in October 2006 or maybe even earlier
and a new versioning scheme was defined in November 2006. [1] and [2]

I always thought the idea was of the milestones was "release early, release
often"
but 17 months later we have released only one milestone
(note that I am not blaming anyone for this, except myself for not helping
out more).

Recently Trustin wrote [3] about the possibility to reach 2.0 RC1 in the
near future.
I think we should go for it because :
* it would please a lot of users
* supporting them might be easier when we have an RC (or a GA)
* we would get more feedback from people using 2.0
* which could lead to more ideas for improving 3.0
* less time pressure when we can work on these 'big changes" in 3.0

[1] http://markmail.org/message/iup4sfwyecalsdyd
[2] http://markmail.org/message/hymzddmoteiatcwq
[3] http://www.nabble.com/Issues-to-resolve-for-2.0.0-(GA)-td16872513.html

regards,
Maarten

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Kevin Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:18 AM, "이희승 (Trustin Lee) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >  .....  However, I
> >  realized it can be somewhat irresponsible action to our users who
> >  already are using MINA 2 in their production system.  If they are going
> >  to spend many sleepless nights because of the radical changes, we're
> >  likely to lose a part of our precious community.
>
> Frankly, anyone using a pre-release product in their production code
> is accepting some risk of it changing, whether they know it or not. I
> wouldn't worry about it.
>

Reply via email to