On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 3/19/11 4:54 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote: >>> Hi Rahul, >>> thanks once again for the wise suggestions, much more than appreciated! >>> >>> I underestimated the importance of the users over the active >>> developers, so I totally agree with you, moving to dormant is >>> premature. >>> >>> I was aware about breaking APIs compatibility, since we had to face >>> the same problem also in [pool2], I thought it would have been a good >>> idea implementing the sandbox in the o.a.c.digester3[1] package, looks >>> like it is compliant to the suggestions you proposed. >>> >>> I like your idea of branching 1.X, 2.X and put 3 on trunk, shall we >>> call a vote before going on? >> +1 >> I don't think we need a VOTE on this, I would say wait a couple of more days >> to make sure we have (lazy) consensus and then just do it. >> > <snip/> > > Not that I care for more process, but I'd like to see 3+ of us say > this is the API they'd like to see for digester3. We also generally > require votes for getting stuff out of sandbox so a vote may not be a > bad idea (even if this isn't a new component, its a new API -- and > somewhere in there, the lines are blurred). I'm +0. >
I hesitate to throw in an opinion as I've never really used digester, but I quite like the API personally, and would +1 this. Matt > -Rahul > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
