----- Original Message -----
From: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [httpclient][VOTE] going forward
> > > > > Step 2 : Create a 1.x branch so that bug corrections (but no new
> > > features)
> > > > > can continue to be made for 1.x versions.
> > > >
> > > > +1.
> > >
> > > I made a mistake when casting my vote there, if the "no new features"
is
> > > interpreted strictly, in which case I would vote -1.
> > >
> >
> > No, it should not be interpreted strictly, well not 100% strictly but
> maybe
> > 90% ... :) My only concern is to have 2 branches that will live
> > independently with different sets of committers and not point of
> > convergence ... I don't think it would do any good, would it ? Everyone
> > would be happy but it would be the same as having 2 separate
> > implementations. However if the changes to 1.x are bug fixes and maybe
> some
> > minor evolutions but with the goal of easing the migration to the 2.0
> > release, then I would be for it. Branches are meant to be reconciled ...
> >
> > Your example of adding a DIGEST support in branch 1.x is fine I think
> during
> > the migration phase to 2.0 (i.e. during the time when Slide is still
using
> > 1.x and has not yet migrated to 2.x) but this change should also be
added
> to
> > the main 2. x branch.
> >
> > > Remy
> >
> > P.S.: I have probably come too strong in my other email ... and I
> apologize
> > for that (I should not write emails in the afternoon, I'm too tired ...
> > :-) ).
> >
> > I guess we agree here and the only remaining point is the location of
the
> > 2.x branch. I would not want to see in the sandbox. What about others ?
>
> As 2.0 was never voted upon, this is not up for anyone to decide. It has
to
> be in the sandbox, period.
>
> Also, I just can't accept your proposal, since Slide is on a different
> schedule than the fast tracked HTTP client. People using the Slide WebDAV
> client are in fact using the HTTP client underneath. Changing its API
would
> introduce API changes to the WebDAV part too. So the move to 2.0 would
only
> happen in Slide 2.0, which isn't even planned yet (that probably means
more
> than a year). So to meet our needs, we have to mantain the 1.x branch for
a
> while, and that probably means there would be a few feature additions in
the
> meantime.
>
> Remy
I don't see anything in the proposal preventing this. As the maintainer,
you can make as many or as few changes to the 1.x branch as you like. It
seems like most people are interested in the 2.0 design, but Slide clearly
needs the 1.0 interface, since it is exposed by the API. Vincent's proposal
seems like a very reasonable compromise.
- Morgan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
