I want to apologize for my last email. I was over the line and made implications and statements I should not have. I let what I perceive as "threats" to a project I have devoted a large part of my life over the last year take better hold of my judgment. I am sorry to Hani and to everyone on this list.
I also want to make the following very clear: * I want 1.4 to continue to exist and be maintained and provide support for anyone using 1.x for as long as they feel comfortable. * I spent a month of development time working very hard to make sure 2.0 was compatible with 1.x, and I want to make sure that as 1.x is maintained that the maintainers work with the 2.0 developers to ensure a smooth migration for users. * As Hani implied (and many of you know), I have (very small) financial interest in WebWork doing well: my two books, Java Open Source Programming and WebWork in Action. I believe that this interest is good for the project as the interest is purely in seeing WebWork succeed and grow (regardless of version). * I have no interest in seeing 1.4 "die" or be "ditched". I know many people who use 1.4 in their code and would never wish for their dependencies to become unsupported. I also spent a great deal of time contributing code to the 1.x line. * This statement from Hani points out my only concern: > Well, we're not ruling out major new features (perhaps even borrowing > from 2.0 if there's enough demand for it). The goal is different from > 2.0 though, which is why both branches are alive and well. Think of 1.x > users as conservative old-fashioned people, who aren't huge fans of > change, and are much happier without having to spend a lot of time > sending emails to find out why feature X changed, etc etc. If 1.4 is supposed to not be about change, then why borrow from 2.0 and introduce change? My one and only fear is that if a roadmap can't be established, then more confusion like Wayland's will continue to crop up. I merely want to make sure that Hani and Dick commit to coordinating with the 2.0 team (for compatibility), which will ultimately provide a more clear picture about the two versions. I apologize for exposing the list to a potential flame fest (we haven't had one in over a year!) and I especially apologize to Hani for not thinking before typing. I hope that this better explains my concerns and that we might come to an agreement that doesn't make WebWork appear to have an identity crisis. Patrick PS: Roadmaps that I would be interested in seeing might be like: * 1.4 is a maintenance branch and will only contain bug fixes and performance improvements * 1.5 will include feature X, Y, and Z, of which X and Y will be pertinent to 2.x. ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
