On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Gustavo Narea <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > If we're supposed to be in a feature-freeze, that's for people to be confident > that from now on things aren't going to change, unless a critical bug has to > be fixed, so that they can start building software and writing about TG2 with > the guarantee that their product isn't going to expire some days later. > I think you missed the point either here or of feature freeze. if the API is keep intact (which from talking to precious) I believe it was. then the change can go into the feature freeze and nothing should break. And it is not a big problem. This isn't really a new feature is spliting it in half. And making the old one call the 2 new ones. It's more like refractoring and the first rule of refractoring is that you should not break anything.
> On the other hand, independent of the article I wrote, I think we must comply > with the feature freeze strictly, specially in non-trivial changes like this > (splitting a function into three ones, defined in newly-created modules each). > again that is not feature freeze it's just code cleanup, this is as harmless as splitting a file in two > The more complex a change is, the more chances to introduce a bug. And at this > point we shouldn't take the risk of introducing bugs, but just fix the > remaining ones. > Right I do agree with you on this, but from Chris commit history I think we can all agree he has never broken the trunk. > Finally, I think this change has to be moved to the upcoming 2.1 branch > (trunk, when there's a 2.0 branch). I love the idea, I think think it's > reasonable, but I think it's too late to go in v2.0. Otherwise, this will be > bad for PRs. > So the final decision on this is to keep it out? because that just threw a snowball on me. In order to get started with the new turbogears.org we need pages 0.1 released which now depends on this, which means we need TG2.1 which is unreleased, which means I need to either break the security policy of the server (installing unreleased software) or install a hacked version of TG2.0rc1 in order to get this going. And as I said above this is all api stable, nothing will break with the FIRST stage of the changes (needed for pages) the second set of changes should be 2.1 only. my 2 cents > Cheers, > > =Gustavo > > > On Tuesday March 17, 2009 19:05:50 Mark Ramm wrote: >> Works for me. We can try to shoehorn this into rc1 if we can get it >> done in the next day or so -- otherwise it'll be a 2.1 feature. >> >> I want it done now, but making that happen will require updating >> several docs :/ So, I'm a bit hesitant to about just going for it >> directly. >> >> --Mark Ramm >> >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Florent Aide <[email protected]> > wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 4:56 PM, percious <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I have begun work on our new extensions methodology. (Some call this >> >> component architecture). I am working with Jorge and Jon to try and >> > >> > [...] >> > >> >> websetup/ >> >> __init__.py : contains setup_app which will be a combination of >> >> bootstrap and schema setup >> > >> > nice this will definitely make things easier. >> > >> > Florent. > > -- > Gustavo Narea <xri://=Gustavo>. > | Tech blog: =Gustavo/(+blog)/tech ~ About me: =Gustavo/about | > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
