2009/11/18 David Pollak <[email protected]> > > > ------------------------------------- >> Jonathan Ferguson<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I was thinking about this earlier, if there is to be a 2.0 I would hope >> there was a chance to remove deprecated code. >> > > Which particular deprecated code are you thinking. >
Generally, nothing concrete, there have been a few conversations on the list where you have said to leave deprecated code in place rather than remove so as not to cause undue pain. > > >> Also consider making breaking >> changes @dpp hasn't been in favour of making to date. >> > > Which changes are you thinking about? > Once again, it was a general there have been a few conversations on the list where changing from Option to Box or renaming functions and you've suggested leaving them, once again not to cause undue pain. > > >> Not to annoy him. As >> 1.X to 2.X is a big enough change that people who don't want to move can >> stay with a stable 1.X and those of us who are running HEAD/TRUNK whatever >> these new fangled git kids call it nowadays can keep racing along. >> > > I'm not sure we have the resources to support a 1.X and a 2.X and a 2.7.x > and a 2.8.x branch. If there are any folks who want to step up and maintain > a branch (or if there's money to hire someone), it's something worth a > discussion, but I don't think there's anyone I know of who could maintain a > 1.X branch if we're going to get radical with a 2.X. I think it's one > branch. > I may not have thought of this, we have 1.0.X and 1.1 at the moment. I guess I thought a 1.1 and 1.0.X would be unsupported if people didn't have money. -- 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=.
