If there is no objection I will release that during the week so we can
actually work on the code together.
I'm not a real fan of this approach in the last week of M7. If bogus API gets
into M7 then we'll have a hell of a time removing/changing it. We almost
always end up regretting those
The API has been ready since before eclipsecon. Dave and others reviewed it and
it is good.
What do you propose instead? We wait 3.7.1?
On 2011-04-20, at 10:29 AM, Jeff McAffer wrote:
If there is no objection I will release that during the week so we can
actually work on the code together.
There is only one discussion point. Do we want a new class versus a setter?
Rather than focusing on the process, please review the API.
On 2011-04-20, at 11:30 AM, Jeff McAffer wrote:
We seem to still be discussing the API. You seem to want to put it in now
(today) and sort it out later. I'd
I did review the API (see the bug).
The discussion there seems to be around naming etc. The word setter does not
occur in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=337016
Are we talking about the same thing?
BTW, you did ask if there are no objections...
Jeff
On 2011-04-20, at 11:32
So here are the options as I see them.
1) postpone this new API until next release
2) propose the API as provisional (i.e. use x-internal etc)
3) work on the API as much as possible to gain confidence that it is API we
can live with and support in future releases.
3) seems rather risky at this
1) only if this means 3.7.1.
2) Not sure if this is possible since the classes are in a public package.
3) I think we are making an overly big deal of this whole thing.
The API proposed has been reviewed by Dave and others a long time ago and it
has not changed since then.
The feedback from the
