I assume the API will be backwards compatible though, right?
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@apache.org wrote:
On 9/28/10 4:36 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
I'm afraid that MINA 3.0 will be a total rewrite, with no way to get
fixes
from 2.0... I consider 2.0 as dead
On 9/29/10 3:53 PM, Mark Webb wrote:
I assume the API will be backwards compatible though, right?
Right, as much as we can, but if we can't we should absolutely provide
some clear and documented path for migration.
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Mark Webb elihusma...@gmail.com wrote:
+1, create a mina-2.0.x branch and let trunk be 3.0. Also, what about
all current bugs/feature requests in JIRA, should we move them to 3.0?
I see that there a a bunch of JIRA entries currently in as 2.0.1, but
should
On 9/28/10 11:21 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Mark Webbelihusma...@gmail.com wrote:
+1, create a mina-2.0.x branch and let trunk be 3.0. Also, what about
all current bugs/feature requests in JIRA, should we move them to 3.0?
I see that there a a bunch of JIRA
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/28/10 11:21 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Mark Webbelihusma...@gmail.com wrote:
+1, create a mina-2.0.x branch and let trunk be 3.0. Also, what about
all current bugs/feature
On 9/28/10 11:54 AM, Ashish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Emmanuel Lecharnyelecha...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/28/10 11:21 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Mark Webbelihusma...@gmail.comwrote:
+1, create a mina-2.0.x branch and let trunk be 3.0. Also,
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny elecha...@gmail.comwrote:
On 9/28/10 11:21 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Mark Webbelihusma...@gmail.com wrote:
+1, create a mina-2.0.x branch and let trunk be 3.0. Also, what about
all current bugs/feature
On 9/28/10 4:36 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
I'm afraid that MINA 3.0 will be a total rewrite, with no way to get fixes
from 2.0... I consider 2.0 as dead wood at this point.
Hahaha is this a reference to the crusty Norwegian Wood codename that
someone gave it a while back?
Not even close to
Hi guys,
now that we got this damn release done, what will we do next ?
There are many things we still have to take care of :
- the MINA new site is still pending, waiting for some love
(http://mina.apache.org/mina2/)
- the doco is also lagging a lot, and we may want to improve it
- more
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys,
now that we got this damn release done, what will we do next ?
There are many things we still have to take care of :
- the MINA new site is still pending, waiting for some love
On 9/27/10 5:50 PM, Ashish wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Emmanuel Lecharnyelecha...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys,
now that we got this damn release done, what will we do next ?
There are many things we still have to take care of :
- the MINA new site is still pending, waiting for
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@apache.org wrote:
On 9/27/10 5:50 PM, Ashish wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Emmanuel Lecharnyelecha...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi guys,
now that we got this damn release done, what will we do next ?
There are many things
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote:
- more important, IMO, is the next version. Should we create an branch for
2.0.1 immediately, and let trunk be 3.0 ?
+1, create a mina-2.0.x branch and let trunk be 3.0
/niklas
+1, create a mina-2.0.x branch and let trunk be 3.0. Also, what about
all current bugs/feature requests in JIRA, should we move them to 3.0?
I see that there a a bunch of JIRA entries currently in as 2.0.1, but
should we make sure that they should be 2.0.1 and not 3.0?
...just my $.02
On Mon,
14 matches
Mail list logo
