On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 14:49, Berin Loritsch wrote: > Peter Donald wrote: > >Why don't we do both? It is more important to develope a model for 4.1 and > >continue enhance that where it is required. We can always keep a > > Framework5 revolution in mind but I think that will fall out of things we > > do for Framework4.x. ie As we find uglies in Framework4.x we add them to > > a list of things that we should fix in Framework5.x and if by the time > > 4.x is finished the list is big enough we move to Framework5.x > > We haven't significantly changed Framework 4.1 for a long time. By > adding more semantic clarification > to Framework 4.1, we are effectively defining a 4.2 which is still a new > version. Dividing our interests > between 4.2, 5.0 and 4.1 would be too much work. Maintaining 4.1 while > developing 5.0 is a better > use of our limited resources.
I disagree. 5.0 is a big step and I would want to completely remove large chunks that were essentially failed experiments. So there needs to be a lot longer incubation time with 5.0 before it will be ready to be adopted. However 4.x can easily be improved in the meantime and while improving it we can always store up a list of things that we find that we would like to kill in 5.0. The good thing is that these things are motivated by real needs rather than pie in the sky wants -- Cheers, Peter Donald ----------------------------------------------- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein ----------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
