[somehow I managed to misplace your mail, sorry for the delay]
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
I like your comments but let me argue a bit ;)
arguing is good! :)
- what is what makes something "stable" ? dramatic API changes can go
in 2.0, 3.0,... they don't need to go before 1.0 (if not there would
never be any 1.0 final in any project)
Major API changes IMO can go anywhere except point/bug-fix versions of
stable releases. I agree that we don't *have* to put everything into
1.0. However, fact is that current doxia is really just useful for doing
one thing: translate apt and fml into xhtml, which is the maven use
case. Try to do anything else and you're sure to run into trouble. Just
look at the issues people have eg with twiki and confluence modules.
My initial motivation for getting involved with doxia was to write a pdf
plugin for m2. The current sandbox version is basically ready by itself,
but it's unusable in practice because of serveral shortcomings of doxia
in other places (DOXIA-148, DOXIA-183). Doxia promises to be a
multi-format content generation framework, as long as it doesn't live up
to this promise, it doesn't deserve a 1.0 release IMO.
- if something has been out for months/years and did not change
drastically, maybe should be considered stable
So all you have to do to make a crappy product stable is sit back and
wait long enough? ;)
- being used Maven "stable" releases for 2+ years doesn't mean it's stable?
or
- if it's not stable maybe we shouldn't be using it in stable versions of Maven?
Personally, I would go with the latter ;) But as I said, Doxia is all
geared to work with Maven (the site-generating plugins), if that's all
it is meant to do, then you can consider it stable. But I don't think
that's all it is about.
I just think there's a history of aversion to final releases that we
should get over
I agree. There has to be a point where you need to let your baby go, but
not before it's able to support itself... My expectation is that we have
at most one beta and maybe some rc's before 1.0-final.
Cheers,
-Lukas
On 10/25/07, Lukas Theussl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
you guys realize that final versions of Maven have been using Doxia
for quite some time now and the fact that it's being called alpha as
an excuse to make more API changes, which will affect the future
development of maven, instead of evolving the API in a backwards
compatible way, it's not a good idea at all
my 0.02
Doxia is not called alpha as an excuse for more API changes, it's called
alpha because it *is* alpha. Just have a look at the code. Have a look
at some open issues [eg DOXIA-38, DOXIA-63, DOXIA-78, DOXIA-99,
DOXIA-104,...] (and while your at it, tell me how to fix them without
affecting backwards compatibility :) ).
It has been mentioned and dicussed a few times on this list, that we
intent to stabilize the API with the first beta release. It's at least
half a year ago now that I drew up the roadmap for it, and basically all
the bug-fix issues scheduled for beta-1 are potentially going to affect
backwards compatibility. [1]
If people are not happy with that then let's put out alpha-10 as
1.0-final and call beta-1 2.0-alpha-30-SNAPSHOT. I'd feel uneasy voting
for the release, and my fear is that nothing will happen anymore after
that, but fine, if that is what makes people happy.
I have tried to collect input on some of the issues on confluence [2]
and on this list. It is discouraging to see how people are ignoring such
discussions, but as soon as they realize that some changes are going to
require some work on their part, they come up with prophetic
trivialities ('backward-incompatible changes are baaad') and useless
statements ('we've been using it so long', so what?).
Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to get some constructive input,
because honestly, I would need it! :)
-Lukas
[1]
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/DOXIA?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
[2] http://docs.codehaus.org/display/DOXIA/Home
On 10/21/07, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lukas has continued work on trunk for beta-1 which includes changes to
the api. These changes will *not* be in the doxia release that I plan do
shortly. This release, dubbed alpha-10, is a bug-fix release for
alpha-9. Alpha-9 has some bugs that makes it unusable for the site- and
project-info-reports-plugin.
So the plan is to do a quick alpha-10 of doxia followed by releases of
site-plugin and project-info-reports-plugin.
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
why still alpha?
On 10/20/07, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi
As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created branches
in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases. The branches
were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the following stuff has
been merged in from trunk:
- DOXIA-156
- DOXIA-161
- The dependency cleanup in the poms
Do we need anything else?
--
Dennis Lundberg
--
Dennis Lundberg
