On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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? >
I'm +1 on releasing a 1.0 version. It seems a shame to tear up other people's hard work so flippantly. :) I think the API is pretty good as-is from what I've used in the past. We should make sure the code coverage is pretty good, though. Why didn't this ever graduation into proper in the first place? Not enough community? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
