-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Oh, yeah - definitely sounds fair. I just happen to be one of those who has something that can't upgrade out of 3 (can't being business speak for "not yet"... and we all know how long "yet" can be). That said, I'm also working with 4, so I'm all for moving forward.
Bottom line as a developer - I want all releases to be the best they can as long as they're supported. As long as there are issues, someone will have to look at them. When issues go down, I'm going to be going over to documentation. Jesse Kuhnert wrote: > I had actually already decided that I should clarify what I'm thinking > before I saw this post.. > > Basically, I've got 0 invested in tapestry 3. So, there would be no > itch/economy/etc that would compelling enough to invest any inordinate > amount of time in it. > > That being said, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice if some of those old > issues were fixed. I don't have enough time to go through each one of them, > but if someone who does care about tap 3 comes forward, who has a trackable > history with tapestry and code that we can get a gauge on what they might be > doing then I wouldn't have a problem at least starting a vote to get them on > board for some more help :) > > Above all else I'd much prefer that Howard not have to deal with these > things. It seems like a waste of skills to have him doing those sorts of > things when he obviously excels at doing the more important (imho) > design/architecture/evolvement of the framework as a whole. If we need to > vote more developers on to the project let's identify who they are and try > to work something out. > > Does that sound fair? > > On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > lol - pops out of a box somewhere... okay - that response was worth it > for that part alone. > > Mind if I post to users asking version mindset? I'm still seeing 3.X > questions being raised - if there's a substantial number, I'll work on > keeping track of fixes for that so you can bulldoze ahead with the fun > stuff. > > Jesse Kuhnert wrote: >>>> Not by me. Unless someone makes a lot of noise about them at least. >>>> >>>> If people are still on 3.X and care enough about an issue then I hope > they >>>> will speak up. I'm trying to not "blindly" close any old issues, but > ones I >>>> know are definitely fixed in 4.0 > already and aren't worth anyone's > time >>>> spending too many brain cycles on for 3.x. >>>> >>>> That's how I feel at least :) Unless a tapestry 3 developer pops out of > a >>>> secret box somewhere I doubt it will be getting a lot of heavy bugfix >>>> development... >>>> >>>> jesse >>>> On 3/9/06, Brian K. Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Jesse - >>>> >>>> I know you're a non-3.X'er, but for the issues written against 3.0 and >>>> fixed in 4.1 - are the fixes getting back ported where they can? >>>> >>>> Brian > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> >> - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFEEOb4aCoPKRow/gARAlqEAJ4yHKVgePmqVtT3R+84rGGvD7kQMACePRNe Y7ESgDZCl9DnjRP8QnrwzMo= =FX3L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
