On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:49:48 +0100 Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Niklas Gustavsson wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Mark Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> I think we should focus on getting 2.0 out the door. We have been > >> working on it long enough and I think there are many people using > >> it in production or near-production systems. Once we release, we > >> will probably get alot more feedback and can use that feedback to > >> enhance/fix the next version. > >> > > > > Big +1. We will find areas that we would like to improve during the > > foreseeable future (this change and ByteBuffer comes to mind). > > > yop. And I don't see how we can include that in 2 weeks... > > Including all such changes will delay 2.0 for a long time, long > > enough for MINA to get behind other frameworks. Having a real > > release out will mean getting further feedback from users, so far I > > haven't seen a lot of users requesting this change nor the > > ByteBuffer change. I think we're too critical, the code is great. > Well, IMHO, the code works. Saying that it's great is another > story :) (but this might just be a matter of taste ...) > > Anyway, I agree with what you say. We don't release fast enough. Atm, > regardless to the current code quality, and performance, I think MINA > 2 is usable, even if there are still some issues to fix. I will do > some quick perf tests on ADS with MINA 2 and give you some feedback > soon. > > > Release early, release often. > > We do neither. > > > eh ;) > > > >> I would think that we should move right > >> towards 3.0. > >> > > > > I say go work on a branch (as already suggested) and see where that > > leads. > There is a new branche for such experiment. Branching is certainly > the way to go, whatever we do regarding the release ! > > I would like to let this thread go for a little bit (let's say a > couple of days), and then, I think we will have to vote : going for > 2.0-RC or modify the code massively. > I think it's a good idea. Let's wait few days for see where the branch is going. If it's looking like a viable and an interesting simplification then let's vote for choosing between integration or post-pone. Julien
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
