----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [httpclient][VOTE] going forward
> Just a recomendation that you should feel free to ignore if you feel like
;)
>
> However I would suggest not doing a release and not changing slide just
yet.
> Why? Because that means that you are releasing software that you know you
> wont be supporting in future, and has many bugs. Instead just refactor it
> completely and nicely.
>
> Then in the future have slide change *once* rather than twice and
preferably
> provide adapter classes to bridge between two APIs. Remember users who
have
> to suffer through a changing API are less likely to come back and IMHO it
is
> better NOT to release something you know is buggy and you know you will
not
> be supporting.
>
Peter,
I agree with what you say. That's even what Rod and I were previously
suggesting. However, we don't want to let Slide committers down and it seems
they really want to push for a 1.0 release that is exactly their code base
(no API refactoring). If this is what it takes to make everyone happy and
they can contribute to the projet I am all for it. Now, if Slide committers
are happy to keep their own httpclient version (the 1.0 of the proposition)
for the time and agree to help and consider moving to commons-httpclient 1.0
(the 2.0 of the proposition) if it brings nice improvements, then I am even
more for that ! I was just led to believe that this is no what they wanted
from the last batch of emails. I just don't want to alienate anyone :-)
I do think that your recommandation makes the most sense :)
Thanks
-Vincent
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:26, Vincent Massol wrote:
> > Ok, after a good night and tens of emails this morning on httpclient,
I'd
> > like to propose a way to go forward, which summarizes what I have
> > understood from all these emails :
> >
> > Step 1 : Scott Sanders is the release manager for httpclient 1.0. The
code
> > will be reverted to the one without the new logging stuff. Scott will
> > advise us ASAP of the release date and do the release. It needs to be
> > quickly (I would say within 1 or 2 weeks max). The 1.0 release should
not
> > add any new API, not even correct the bugs found and corrected on the
> > rlwrefactoring branch (the goal is not to make a perfect release but
rather
> > to have one that Slide can rely on and if Slide was working with the
code
> > as it was before, it should continue to work - Moreover correction of
the
> > bugs introduces API changes). Correction of bugs could be done in
version
> > 1.1 (see step 2).
> >
> > Step 2 : Create a 1.x branch so that bug corrections (but no new
features)
> > can continue to be made for 1.x versions.
> >
> > Step 3 : Once this is done, we move the rlwrefactoring branch to the
main
> > branch. Remy and other Slide committers should comment on a point by
point
> > basis on the changes made to that branch (Rod gave a detailed list and
this
> > can serve for comments). This main branch will be Version 2.0 of
HttpClient
> > as it will introduce several major API changes. We will work with Slide
on
> > these changes so that Slide can migrate to version 2.0 confidently.
> >
> > But please guys, be open for step 3 and let's try to work together in a
> > calm, reasoned and professional way. Don't forget we're just coding a
> > stupid HttpClient which should have been included in the JDK long ago !
I
> > find it a pity that in 2001 we still have to manipulate Socket objects !
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
> *---------------------------------------------------------*
> | Contrary to popular belief, UNIX is user-friendly. It |
> | just happens to be selective on who it makes friendship |
> | with. |
> | - Richard Cook |
> *---------------------------------------------------------*
>
