On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> wrote: > Joe - please stop saying "I told you so". It really is counter-productive > and it takes away from having a feeling of shared responsibility for the > project.
I completely disagree. I explicitly disagreed with this because I was afraid of the backlash from the users, and my concerns were ignored. The only reason that I agreed to it was to move forward, and it seems that was the wrong decision for me to make. > > Checking in this change was not the only thing that brought us to this > point. Had we had the time to follow our release process, it would have > been caught by step 3 of CuttingRelease's "What to Test". > How? We don't test third-party plugins. > That said, I'm still don't think that our mistake was anything other than > poor messaging / docs. 3.0 implies that breaking changes will happen. I disagree. We should have kept the shim in so that people could easily transition from 2.9 to 3.0, as what Don said earlier. > Another thing we could look at doing is creating a shim as a plugin. Then, > if plugins want to have their java code shared with both, they can declare > that they depend on the "2.9.0 shim plugin". We could even do the same for > the old "Plugin.java" (which is another thing we removed in 3.0) Why are you so dead set against adding a shim into core?
