Michael McCandless wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Mark Miller<[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I forgot about this oddity. Its so weird. Its like we are doing two >> releases on top of each other - it just seems confusing. >> > > I'm also not wed to the "fast turnaround" (remove deprecations, switch > to generics) 3.0 release. > > We could, instead, take out time doing the 3.0 release, ie let it > include new features too. > > I thought I had read a motivation for the 1.9 -> 2.0 fast turnaround, > but I can't remember it nor find it now... > > Mike > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > I thought the motivation was to provide a clean upgrade path with the deprecations - you move to 2.9 and move from all the deprecated methods - then you move to 3.0 and your good with no deprecations. I'd guess the worry is that new features in 3.0 would add new deprecations and its not quite so clean?
Personally, I think thats fine though. New deprecations will come in 3.1 anyway. You can still move everything in 2.9, and then move to 3.0 - so what if something else is now deprecated? You can move again or wait for 3.9 to move ... -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
