Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
> Sam, I figure you meant the "perennially in alpha" comment sort of
> tongue-in-cheek. I hope you did, anyway.
>
[snip]
>
> Let's get one thing straight - we're not in alpha. We're not even close
to
> alpha.
>
> You're on the XML PMC...it would be nice to hear constructive suggestions
> rather than snide comments.
My apologies. Let me give the context of my statement. I was responding
to the following:
> I don't think a backwards compatible interface is needed. Not for
something
> with a version number of 0.19.0, and been characterized as pre-beta,
> not-production-ready and incomplete. (If that doesn't buy the project
the
> rights to change the public interface at will, we might as well call it
> version 1.0).
My own personal crusade is to get projects to talk to one another. And to
treat their public interfaces as contracts. The above text hit a hot
button with me - it is essentially the same words that were used by
projects such as Avalon and Turbine for the longest time. Now they both
have made promises to reform, and I am trying to keep them honest -
something that they both have a somewhat imperfect record to date.
My response was purely in response to the above text. In all the time that
I have been following these various projects, this is the first time I
recall a breaking change by xml-fop. That's a pretty darn good track
record. And I have been very pleased by the recent statements concerning
respecting backwards compatibility.
I honestly didn't mean anything more. Once again, I'm sorry if I caused
any problems.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
