I like your comments but let me argue a bit ;) - what is what makes something "stable" ? dramatic API changes can go in 2.0, 3.0,... they don't need to go before 1.0 (if not there would never be any 1.0 final in any project) - if something has been out for months/years and did not change drastically, maybe should be considered stable
- being used Maven "stable" releases for 2+ years doesn't mean it's stable? or - if it's not stable maybe we shouldn't be using it in stable versions of Maven? I just think there's a history of aversion to final releases that we should get over On 10/25/07, Lukas Theussl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Carlos Sanchez wrote: > > you guys realize that final versions of Maven have been using Doxia > > for quite some time now and the fact that it's being called alpha as > > an excuse to make more API changes, which will affect the future > > development of maven, instead of evolving the API in a backwards > > compatible way, it's not a good idea at all > > > > my 0.02 > > > > Doxia is not called alpha as an excuse for more API changes, it's called > alpha because it *is* alpha. Just have a look at the code. Have a look > at some open issues [eg DOXIA-38, DOXIA-63, DOXIA-78, DOXIA-99, > DOXIA-104,...] (and while your at it, tell me how to fix them without > affecting backwards compatibility :) ). > > It has been mentioned and dicussed a few times on this list, that we > intent to stabilize the API with the first beta release. It's at least > half a year ago now that I drew up the roadmap for it, and basically all > the bug-fix issues scheduled for beta-1 are potentially going to affect > backwards compatibility. [1] > > If people are not happy with that then let's put out alpha-10 as > 1.0-final and call beta-1 2.0-alpha-30-SNAPSHOT. I'd feel uneasy voting > for the release, and my fear is that nothing will happen anymore after > that, but fine, if that is what makes people happy. > > I have tried to collect input on some of the issues on confluence [2] > and on this list. It is discouraging to see how people are ignoring such > discussions, but as soon as they realize that some changes are going to > require some work on their part, they come up with prophetic > trivialities ('backward-incompatible changes are baaad') and useless > statements ('we've been using it so long', so what?). > > Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to get some constructive input, > because honestly, I would need it! :) > > -Lukas > > [1] > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/DOXIA?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel > [2] http://docs.codehaus.org/display/DOXIA/Home > > > > On 10/21/07, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Lukas has continued work on trunk for beta-1 which includes changes to > >>the api. These changes will *not* be in the doxia release that I plan do > >>shortly. This release, dubbed alpha-10, is a bug-fix release for > >>alpha-9. Alpha-9 has some bugs that makes it unusable for the site- and > >>project-info-reports-plugin. > >> > >>So the plan is to do a quick alpha-10 of doxia followed by releases of > >>site-plugin and project-info-reports-plugin. > >> > >>Carlos Sanchez wrote: > >> > >>>why still alpha? > >>> > >>>On 10/20/07, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>Hi > >>>> > >>>>As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created branches > >>>>in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases. The branches > >>>>were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the following stuff has > >>>>been merged in from trunk: > >>>> > >>>>- DOXIA-156 > >>>>- DOXIA-161 > >>>>- The dependency cleanup in the poms > >>>> > >>>>Do we need anything else? > >>>> > >>>>-- > >>>>Dennis Lundberg > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >>-- > >>Dennis Lundberg > >> > > > > > > > -- I could give you my word as a Spaniard. No good. I've known too many Spaniards. -- The Princess Bride