Remy Maucherat wrote:
> jean-frederic clere wrote:
>
>> Remy Maucherat wrote:
>>
>>> Is tagging 5.0.0 ok ?
>>
>>
>>
>> -0 : If the API has to change it is better to change it before tagging.
>
>
> This is a milestone, probably not even an alpha. Think of it as Apache
> 2.0.0.
>
> OTOH, it wil
jean-frederic clere wrote:
> Remy Maucherat wrote:
>
>> Is tagging 5.0.0 ok ?
>
>
> -0 : If the API has to change it is better to change it before tagging.
This is a milestone, probably not even an alpha. Think of it as Apache
2.0.0.
OTOH, it will likely make the life of early adopters of th
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> Is tagging 5.0.0 ok ?
-0 : If the API has to change it is better to change it before tagging.
>
> I did some profiling on 5.0, and committed some optimizations. The
> biggest problem by far is the mapper (which thanks to the new welcome
> files code is much much worse
Is tagging 5.0.0 ok ?
I did some profiling on 5.0, and committed some optimizations. The
biggest problem by far is the mapper (which thanks to the new welcome
files code is much much worse than 4.1's mapper). I plan to rewrite the
mapper for inclusion in 5.0.1. This will introduce some changes
