-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Personal opinion on this type of issue - hit us over the head! For a bug-fix release, contractual interfaces shouldn't break - nor should implementation details. For feature releases (.X and X.) there should at least be notable mention and migration path, but those are where these types of changes should appear - not bug fix releases.
I do feel that these two releases were vitally important due to the length of time since the last releases as well as the number of fixes. No excuse tho' - I'm personally +1 to a 4.0.2 to fix this (and, possibly non-intrusive fixes such as those pesky validation strings ;-)) That said - I'd also bow to Jesse on the final decision as it's in the 4.X realm (and I don't have access to actually perform the release yet). Brian Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi wrote: > Jesse, but this is not a Tacos issue. I mean, even if Tacos didn't have > a duplicated Form component, Tapestry should take care on its own of not > breaking the API on small bugfix releases. > Rather, the issue is about Tapestry not having a deprecated or > overloaded component that fits the old interface. > > But I know nobody wants to hit you in the head for doing this. You and > Brian have been doing a great job, actually. Rather, what I suggest is > to fix the Tapestry interface and do a small release. The question is: > is it worth it? > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFENeGeaCoPKRow/gARAnC5AJ9PlO9Q7rjkZGccDBa2upDFHAVSjQCg+Lfs ngDk2QlpHb8LRR7a2QmFecA= =ANKm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
