At 05:27 PM 12/1/2004, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
If you have a better social algorithm that would stop you from feeling insulted, let us know what it is.
It's not about me, log4j or velocity, but coming to the realization that 100% backward compatibility is not always possible. It seems that gump is based on the premise that an item can be removed in version n, if it has been deprecated on version k, where k < n. Although most reasonable, this policy cannot always be followed, for legitimate reasons.
Don't understand me wrong, I very much appreciate Gump as a service. For example, log4j developers would like to be notified of changes in log4j CVS head that affect dependents. However, many dependents do not need to be aware of these changes, only log4j developers need to know about them. Before releasing the next version, we will publish a step-by-step migration document. Detecting that project V broke because of changes in project L, and then notifying only L, is a lot more complicated than what gump does currently. Surely that's asking too much out of Gump.
Our goal is not to insult people or to create trouble.
Ditto here.
-- Stefano.
-- Ceki G�lc�
The complete log4j manual: http://qos.ch/eclm
Professional log4j support: http://qos.ch/log4jSupport
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
