On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Claude Brisson <cla...@renegat.net> wrote: > On 2011-04-13 11:57, Antonio Petrelli wrote: >> >> Hi Claude >> >> 2011/4/13 Claude Brisson<cla...@renegat.net> ... > > Then I'd vote for the first solution: have tools-2.1 require engine-2.x once > it's released. After all, we can backport important changes to tools-2.0.x. ...
I agree. At this point, tools is evolving slowly, and what time i do have to develop velocity will be largely spent on engine 2. I think it is fine to release fixes to Tools in the 2.0.x branch and have 2.1 be where we drop support for both Tools 1 config and Engine 1. It is great that we have worked so hard in the past for backward compatibility. But with Engine 2, i think we need to start letting go of that at the API level (VTL from 1.x era should still work, though). So, i don't think it is really sustainable to burden Tools 2.1 with the task of staying compatible with both the API of Engine 1 and Engine 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@velocity.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@velocity.apache.org
