I think we've stabilised what Jelly 1.0 is and will be. Out of the bug entries, a lot (35/63) are not for the core. And hence unrelated to the 1.0 release.
There are a few issues which could change Jelly significantly and we'd agreed to not make those part of the 1.0 release. If that means a 2.0, that's fine by me. On 6/14/05, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 13:12 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote: > > And > > the lack of bugzilla entries and user/development questions also implies > > that Jelly is fine as-is. > > umm .. the lack of Bugzilla entries is probably because Jelly uses > Jira :-(. > > Jira has quite a few bug entries (73). > > It looks like there are quite a few bugs that really should be addressed > before a 1.0 release because it looks to me like they have the potential > to change Jelly behaviour - after a 1.0 release, that would mean going > to 2.0 I believe. > > On the other hand, we need to consider that Jelly have any regular > maintainers. And if Maven2 moves to Marmalade (marmalade.codehaus.org) > instead of Jelly the developer pool will drop even further. So saying no > to a 1.0 release now may mean saying no to a 1.0 release forever - > despite the fact that Jelly is clearly useable for many purposes right > now. I don't know which is the best choice... > > Regards, > > Simon > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/ "You are going to let the fear of poverty govern your life and your reward will be that you will eat, but you will not live." - George Bernard Shaw --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
