Thanks Jan for your input. It makes me very happy! John
On Jul 28, 11:20 am, Jan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John, > > If you want to hear something from the user perspective, Cecil 0.9.3 > is used in the Telerik ORM OpenAccess since 2 months now. I have > ported our assembly enhancer from using the Emit API to Cecil 0.9.0. > It was a bigger project and we had some issues with the first versions > of Cecil 0.9, but because JB is very responsive all are fixed now and > I did not get a single problem from our customers. From my perspective > it is pretty stable. > > Jan > > On 28 Jul., 06:03, JohnC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thank you Jb for your detailed reply - it really helps and reduces my > > worries a lot. > > > Thanks > > John > > > On Jul 27, 12:17 pm, Jb Evain <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey, > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:09 AM, JohnC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Please do not take this the wrong way, I am sure you have taken your > > > > best efforts to write bug-free code and do testing, but the fact > > > > remains that the new code base is only 3 month mature. > > > > No problem John, it's a totally valid concern. > > > > > Can you provide any insight if and why the above may not be true? Am I > > > > incorrect in the above analysis? > > > > But yes, your analysis is not quite correct and is missing some > > > points. The code in github has been pushed recently, but I started > > > working on the 0.9 version in late 2007. Thanks to some > > > early-adapters, who happen to be big users of Cecil, we've been able > > > to exercise the code base when they did the porting effort from 0.6 to > > > 0.9. I waited as long as possible to release 0.9, to be sure to have > > > something at least as good as 0.6. Of course we had small regressions > > > and bugs, but 0.9.3 and the upcoming 0.9.4 are really stable. > > > > As a side note, 0.9 is backed by a large test suite, making us > > > confident when we land patches. At some point, I was a bit unwilling > > > to land big patches in 0.6 as I had no idea what I was breaking or not > > > (ô the joy of bearing with youth mistakes). Also note that 0.9 has > > > been tested with all the problematics assemblies I've collected with > > > 0.6, and works just fine, if not better. > > > > 0.9 is now used in a diversity of commercial products and open source > > > projects, including compilers, and as of today, we have no known case > > > of assemblies that can't be read or written. > > > > I, for one, am still in the process of porting large portions of code > > > from 0.6 to 0.9, and except for the API breakage detailed in the > > > migration page of the wiki, everything is going smoothly. The API > > > breakage can indeed be really annoying. But it really does clean a lot > > > of dark spots in 0.6, so I'm happy I did it. > > > > -- > > > Jb Evain <[email protected]>- Zitierten Text ausblenden - > > > - Zitierten Text anzeigen - > > -- -- mono-cecil
