On Friday, March 06, 2015 12:25:07 PM Steve Dougherty wrote: > Arne made this suggestion, which sounds good to me: declare this an > unstable API which may change in response to feedback, merge it as-is > (once it contains that notice) to get the release out sooner, and > continue to alter it in response to feedback. (Such as the existing > code review.)
I assume you made this suggestion of marking the new API unstable because: 1) you then wouldn't have to wait for me to reply to your review results 2) you didn't remember whether the review results contain any blocking issues when you talked with Arne. I've replied to all results now, so 1) doesn't apply anymore. With regards to 2): From my perspective, I think I've fixed everything of the review results which was fix-worthy for now, and provided an explanation of why everything else can be postponed. Specifically, I think I've provided an idea how everything which I want to postpone could be resolved in a backwards- compatible way in the future. So overall, I think the "unstable" notice is not necessary. ACK? > I'm tempted to also push back work on the prerequisite to requiring > Java 7. (Refusing to upgrade to something the JVM cannot run.) Thoughts? I am willing to fix WOT to not require Java 7, will do this soon. The plugin-fcp-rewrite already is fine with Java 6.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
