Kris, I'm all for an unstable branch. I like exploration. I doubt I can spend a lot of time contributing to the branch, but using the powers of Maven and Git, I think it would be pretty easy to have such a branch.
The breaking change issue was a small part of why I rejected Derek's proposal. I'm not going to rehash my reasoning... it's on the prior thread and if you need clarification, please contact me privately. *In terms of calcification, I disagree with your suggestion that Lift is calcifying. One always has to make a trade-off between the cost of changes and the value of the change. We broke the APIs massively to move Box to lift-common and change over from Scala Actors to Lift Actors. In this case, the break was obvious and the upside was very high.* * * *But, yes, I'm totally in favor of an unstable branch.* * * *Thanks,* * * *David* * * On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Kris Nuttycombe <kris.nuttyco...@gmail.com > wrote: > > This brings to mind something I've been thinking about for a while - > what would folks think about the possibility of creating a > "lift-unstable" branch? Lift is only a couple of years old, and it > seems to me like it would be unfortunate to start stagnating > development due to concerns about backwards compatibility. > > So, my proposal is this: that we create a branch of Lift that makes no > guarantees about source compatibility from release to release or > indeed day-to-day. This could be a proving ground for new ideas that > could then either be migrated into the main trunk with changes for > backwards compatibility, or could be source of new major version > releases. > > If we don't have the freedom to make breaking changes at even such a > small level as Derek proposed with the Joda-Time situation, I think > it's a problem. Lift is too young to calcify just yet. > > Kris > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:03 PM, David Pollak > <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Jeppe Nejsum Madsen <je...@ingolfs.dk> > > wrote: > >> > >> Derek Chen-Becker <dchenbec...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> > It's entirely subjective, but I just strongly dislike the idea of > >> > using method names like jtNow, etc. > >> > >> I couldn't agree more....code just doesn't read nice anymore. > > > > I'm cool with other names, but, and this is a huge *BUT*... > > > > having two methods that have different return signatures is a huge source > of > > bugs. We saw this when we changed some of the S methods to return > > Box[String] rather than String. There were hundreds of subtle errors. > > > > I'm happy to deprecate now and have goodNow (returns JodaTime) and > evilNow > > (returns java.util.Date), but I am 100% against changing a return > signature. > > > > I am sorry that my position is making folks unhappy, especially Derek who > > works hard and does a great job. > > > > Thanks, > > > > David > > > >> > >> /Jeppe > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net > > Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 > > Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp > > Surf the harmonics > > > > > > > > > > > -- Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp Surf the harmonics --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
