I think a 2.0 needs more time with a 2.0 mindset. Once 2.0 is on the table there may be more redesign involved. Or to put it differently, I think the idea to have a 2.0 should precede the list of features and the timeframe.
------------------------------------- Heiko Seeberger<[email protected]> wrote: Hi, There has been a large amount of new stuff and also some breaking changes since Lift 1.0. As an OSGi guy I suggest we call the next version Lift 2.0, because increasing the major version number will show the world that there are breaking changes and/or cool new features. At least, this is how versions are used in OSGi land. OK, I know that Sun follows another version strategy (keeping the major version fixed to 1 forever) and the Scala folks also seem to be stick to 2.x (quite a lot people would like 2.8 to be 3.0), but IMHO this is no reason for Lift to follow the same mislead strategy. So what do you think? Heiko My job: weiglewilczek.com My blog: heikoseeberger.name Follow me: twitter.com/hseeberger OSGi on Scala: scalamodules.org Lift, the simply functional web framework: liftweb.net --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
