--- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Matt Benson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > --- James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Matt Benson
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Good questions! I suppose that's the thing
> to
> > > do,
> > > > with the understanding that my pushing this
> makes
> > > me
> > > > liable if I don't get off my ass and do
> what's
> > > needed
> > > > to get that branch releasable, huh?
> > > >
> > >
> > > So, how will this work if we want to promote
> this
> > > thing to the proper?
> >
> > To be honest, I'm not sure why [functor] was
> never
> > ready to graduate, but I intend to get a better
> idea
> > of its true status during the next week or so...
> >
> >
> > > Do we promote based on the 1.0 code?
> >
> > If for some reason the generics branch is ready
> before
> > the 1.0, perhaps we can cross that bridge when we
> come
> > to it?
> >
> >
> > > We can't do a
> > > release out of
> > > the sandbox, correct?
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> >
> > > Or, does it even matter that
> > > we'll have two
> > > active branches (trunk and the non-genericized
> 1.0
> > > branch) before
> > > promotion?
> >
> > I don't see that it really matters. :)
>
> I can't help thinking it would be better to just
> work on one copy
> initially (i.e. trunk) - review whats there and do
> as much work as
> possible before doing the generics stuff. Otherwise
> you're just going
> to be duplicating each other. I just noticed Matt
> added checkstyle
> rules to the branch - thats a good example of
> something that would be
> good to sort out only once.
>
I've actually been thinking the same thing--if we get
other issues sorted out before adding generics code.
I'm just trying to keep my personal desire for a
1.3-compatible release from infringing too much on
others who may not want it. I actually don't have
much to gain from such a release, but a) you never
know what you'll need tomorrow/next week/year, and b)
I've yet to find anything in the codebase that says
IMMATURE! to me, so I don't see why we can't resolve
any issues fairly quickly. If we're that close to
being able to provide a working implementation, why
shouldn't we?
-Matt
> Niall
>
> > > This is somewhat of a weird situation.
> > >
> > Agreed. :) I specialize in those.
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> >
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total
Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
