On 3/19/11 4:54 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote: > Hi Rahul, > thanks once again for the wise suggestions, much more than appreciated! > > I underestimated the importance of the users over the active > developers, so I totally agree with you, moving to dormant is > premature. > > I was aware about breaking APIs compatibility, since we had to face > the same problem also in [pool2], I thought it would have been a good > idea implementing the sandbox in the o.a.c.digester3[1] package, looks > like it is compliant to the suggestions you proposed. > > I like your idea of branching 1.X, 2.X and put 3 on trunk, shall we > call a vote before going on? +1 I don't think we need a VOTE on this, I would say wait a couple of more days to make sure we have (lazy) consensus and then just do it.
Phil > Many thanks in advance, have a nice day, > Simo > > [1] http://s.apache.org/VLZ > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Simone Tripodi >> <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: >>> Hi all mates!!! >>> I need your support on advising our users that a new version of >>> Digester is available on sandbox, I already sent more than once an >>> email on users ML but never got a reply, maybe my name is not so >>> influent between users or maybe the Digester is not so popular as I >>> still think... but I wouldn't have wasted the time I invested :P >>> >>> So, IMHO there are few points that deserve our attention, such: >>> >>> * if the Digester is out of our users' interest, it should be - >>> sadly! - moved to the Dormant; >> <snip/> >> >> We've users, though no active developers beyond you -- as long as >> you're interested I think a move to dormant is premature. >> >> >>> * if the previous tense is wrong: >>> * just maintain the current implementation in trunk, or >>> * evaluate if the new Digester3 is a good candidate to replace the >>> proper one >>> >> <snap/> >> >> Third option would be to do both. More below. >> >> >>> I'm sure that together we can find the right way, for those interested >>> knowing more details, Digester3 docs is on[1] with samples. >>> >> <snip/> >> >> Having looked at the samples and API, its clearly not compatible (this >> is not a statement about its value). I don't think we should use the >> same Java packages (oac.digester.*) since this isn't a drop-in >> replacement. However, if you are keen on releasing this (I don't have >> time to help in near future), an option would be to promote and >> release the sandbox code while keeping the oac.digester3.* packages. >> >> This would mean doing both: (a) retaining current code in 1.x and 2.x >> branches in case future releases need to be made on those lines and >> (b) moving sandbox code to trunk as 3.x line (while keeping the >> oac.digester3.* packages). >> >> -Rahul >> >> >>> Looking forward to read from you soon, have a nice day!!! >>> Simo >>> >>> [1] http://commons.apache.org/sandbox/digester3/ >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
