Yep, branches are cheap. This is a good approach! On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> wrote: > My strategy with Lang btw is to just develop it and see what the API > looks like at the end. We spend too much time worrying about the > version number up front :) > > Hen > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Liam Coughlin <lscough...@gmail.com> wrote: >> That makes a little more sense then how I read the Stephen originally, and >> yes you're probably right -- though I don't think you're going to be able to >> get much varargs in without wrecking binary anyway since a lot of the >> parameter ordering doesn't lend itself to it. >> >> I just don't feel that a 1.3 java 5 "Now with Special Sauce but the Same >> Old Hamburger" release would be all that useful in the long run, but i could >> be completely wrong. >> >> Cheers, >> -L >> >> >> >> n...@fabulich.com <d...@fabulich.com>> wrote: >>> > "NEEDS" is a little strong.... I think there's room in the world for a >>> > backwards-compatible dbutils 1.3 with generics and varargs followed >>> shortly >>> > afterward by a more thoroughly re-worked dbutils 2.0. >>> >>> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
