Nathan, It's been a treat to work with you over the past set of years. Thanks so much for taking this project to a new level. Someday I'll make it the 90 minute plane ride up to Portland and we can go out for a beer.
I'm going to take a look at 1.7 later today. I just hit a NPE in Velocity this week which is identical to VELOCITY-717. I want to see if it's fixed in the latest code, or if I can sneak a fix in. (and on another note -- Jarrko -- why are you not yet an official velocity committer yet?) WILL On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Nathan Bubna <nbu...@gmail.com> wrote: > First, some personal news: my work has taken some dramatic shifts > toward the client side in the last year. This makes it > nigh-impossible to use work time for Velocity development. So, i > have lacked time to finish VelocityTools 2 (among other things), and i > don't foresee much change in this situation in the future. This is > doubly so because everything is good enough for now, great even. It's > remarkable to remember how much Velocity has progressed in the last 9 > years. For my purpose, Engine and Tools don't have any remaining pain > points. There are features and improvements i'd still enjoy working > on, but i simply can't manage the time. More and more of my open > source time (both work and free) is occupied with jQuery and friends. > > That said, i am fairly determined to push out Engine 1.7 final and > Tools 2.0 final one way or another. My hope is that 1.7 will be the > last major 1.x release of Engine, freeing our newer blood (Byron and > Jarkko et al) to set and execute visions for 2.0 without all the > encumbrances of the past (old jdks, backwards compatibility, my > stubborn opinions and such :). > > Tools 2.0 has been languishing in beta due to unfinished docs. No > one has stepped up to help and really the docs aren't that bad, so i'm > done with that. Expect a CFV for Tools 2.0 final soon. Object > quickly if you have other ideas. :) > > In other Tools news, there are a few unpublished tools i've been > sitting on that are in various states of completion/polish. I had > intended them to be part of a 2.1 release, but that now feels too far > away to consider. As such, i intend to add them to 2.0, while > somehow denoting them as "beta" level. Really, we are overdue for a > means of classifying tools, as they all have various levels of support > and polish. Obviously, i will mention their status in their docs and > leave them out of the default tools.xml files, but i was wondering if > i should take it further. Perhaps, by putting them in a "beta" > package like org.apache.velocity.tools.generic.beta.FooTool? Any > thoughts on this? > > Anyhow, i will continue to be on the lists (even if my answers are > more delayed than before) and will certainly be able to help walk > people through release processes and such, but in general, i am less > available than before. Jarkko, this especially means that we need to > finalize your committer status so you can commit your own patches. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@velocity.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@velocity.apache.org > >
