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.
Absolutely agreed. I am a strong believer in dynamic equilibria and adaptation, not in stagnation as the way to obtain solidity.
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.
Yes, this is the fulcrum of the whole discussion and I'm actually glad that this surfaced because it did make me think a lot.
Creating a social algorithm that allows the above will require a lot more work than I expected, but you are right: we cannot expect people to be good contract managers all the time [for whatever reason] (or even to understand what contract management is about).
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.
Not really, Leo and I spent several days designing proving that the algorithm for this is computationally tractable.
Our goal is not to insult people or to create trouble.
Ditto here.
Appreciated.
-- Stefano.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
