I like your comments but let me argue a bit ;)
- what is what makes something "stable" ? dramatic API changes can go
in 2.0, 3.0,... they don't need to go before 1.0 (if not there would
never be any 1.0 final in any project)
- if something has been out for months/years and did not change
drastically, maybe should be considered stable
- being used Maven "stable" releases for 2+ years doesn't mean it's stable?
or
- if it's not stable maybe we shouldn't be using it in stable versions of Maven?
I just think there's a history of aversion to final releases that we
should get over
On 10/25/07, Lukas Theussl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> > you guys realize that final versions of Maven have been using Doxia
> > for quite some time now and the fact that it's being called alpha as
> > an excuse to make more API changes, which will affect the future
> > development of maven, instead of evolving the API in a backwards
> > compatible way, it's not a good idea at all
> >
> > my 0.02
> >
>
> Doxia is not called alpha as an excuse for more API changes, it's called
> alpha because it *is* alpha. Just have a look at the code. Have a look
> at some open issues [eg DOXIA-38, DOXIA-63, DOXIA-78, DOXIA-99,
> DOXIA-104,...] (and while your at it, tell me how to fix them without
> affecting backwards compatibility :) ).
>
> It has been mentioned and dicussed a few times on this list, that we
> intent to stabilize the API with the first beta release. It's at least
> half a year ago now that I drew up the roadmap for it, and basically all
> the bug-fix issues scheduled for beta-1 are potentially going to affect
> backwards compatibility. [1]
>
> If people are not happy with that then let's put out alpha-10 as
> 1.0-final and call beta-1 2.0-alpha-30-SNAPSHOT. I'd feel uneasy voting
> for the release, and my fear is that nothing will happen anymore after
> that, but fine, if that is what makes people happy.
>
> I have tried to collect input on some of the issues on confluence [2]
> and on this list. It is discouraging to see how people are ignoring such
> discussions, but as soon as they realize that some changes are going to
> require some work on their part, they come up with prophetic
> trivialities ('backward-incompatible changes are baaad') and useless
> statements ('we've been using it so long', so what?).
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to get some constructive input,
> because honestly, I would need it! :)
>
> -Lukas
>
> [1]
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/DOXIA?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
> [2] http://docs.codehaus.org/display/DOXIA/Home
>
>
> > On 10/21/07, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Lukas has continued work on trunk for beta-1 which includes changes to
> >>the api. These changes will *not* be in the doxia release that I plan do
> >>shortly. This release, dubbed alpha-10, is a bug-fix release for
> >>alpha-9. Alpha-9 has some bugs that makes it unusable for the site- and
> >>project-info-reports-plugin.
> >>
> >>So the plan is to do a quick alpha-10 of doxia followed by releases of
> >>site-plugin and project-info-reports-plugin.
> >>
> >>Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> >>
> >>>why still alpha?
> >>>
> >>>On 10/20/07, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Hi
> >>>>
> >>>>As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created branches
> >>>>in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases. The branches
> >>>>were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the following stuff has
> >>>>been merged in from trunk:
> >>>>
> >>>>- DOXIA-156
> >>>>- DOXIA-161
> >>>>- The dependency cleanup in the poms
> >>>>
> >>>>Do we need anything else?
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Dennis Lundberg
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Dennis Lundberg
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
