I had actually already decided that I should clarify what I'm thinking before I saw this post..
Basically, I've got 0 invested in tapestry 3. So, there would be no itch/economy/etc that would compelling enough to invest any inordinate amount of time in it. That being said, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice if some of those old issues were fixed. I don't have enough time to go through each one of them, but if someone who does care about tap 3 comes forward, who has a trackable history with tapestry and code that we can get a gauge on what they might be doing then I wouldn't have a problem at least starting a vote to get them on board for some more help :) Above all else I'd much prefer that Howard not have to deal with these things. It seems like a waste of skills to have him doing those sorts of things when he obviously excels at doing the more important (imho) design/architecture/evolvement of the framework as a whole. If we need to vote more developers on to the project let's identify who they are and try to work something out. Does that sound fair? On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > lol - pops out of a box somewhere... okay - that response was worth it > for that part alone. > > Mind if I post to users asking version mindset? I'm still seeing 3.X > questions being raised - if there's a substantial number, I'll work on > keeping track of fixes for that so you can bulldoze ahead with the fun > stuff. > > Jesse Kuhnert wrote: > > Not by me. Unless someone makes a lot of noise about them at least. > > > > If people are still on 3.X and care enough about an issue then I hope > they > > will speak up. I'm trying to not "blindly" close any old issues, but > ones I > > know are definitely fixed in 4.0 > already and aren't worth anyone's > time > > spending too many brain cycles on for 3.x. > > > > That's how I feel at least :) Unless a tapestry 3 developer pops out of > a > > secret box somewhere I doubt it will be getting a lot of heavy bugfix > > development... > > > > jesse > > On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jesse - > > > > I know you're a non-3.X'er, but for the issues written against 3.0 and > > fixed in 4.1 - are the fixes getting back ported where they can? > > > > Brian > >> > - --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) > > iD8DBQFEEON+aCoPKRow/gARAuteAJ9xExOTULK5/YLpL7MEYUfsNS0KiACeM4V4 > 6ob3fdKvwMstrt/ocw9TSLU= > =KPPt > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
