Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> Sam, I figure you meant the "perennially in alpha" comment sort of
> tongue-in-cheek. I hope you did, anyway.
> Let's get one thing straight - we're not in alpha. We're not even close
> alpha.
> You're on the XML 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
> 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
> 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]

Reply via email to