On 3/1/10 6:30 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Mar 1, 2010, at 9:20 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
On 3/1/10 6:10 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
On 3/1/10 4:38 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Ashish wrote:
Thoughts ?
Unless it breaks the system, i would say lets not loose our sleep
over this.
While I share the same opinion about the IoFuture hierarchy as you
I have the same sentiments as Ashish.
I'm afraid that we might have to fix the issue in 2.0.... Trust me,
i'm not pleased with this !
Fixing a bug is one thing. Reorganizing a code base a few days
after an attempted vote on its initial release is another.
I know :/ This is why I created a branch, in a desesperate attempt to
get rid of all those futures, instead of doing that in trunk. Now, it
was the end of a long and painful week, chasing many bugs in many
places, and I was turning in circle.
I *wish* we can fix the bug, without having to rewrite this part.
Another alternative is to totally abandon 2.x. It was never
officially released. Just leave it as it is and work on the new 2.x
I'm also considering this option...
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.nextury.com
