On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote: > Le 21/10/2011 17:04, Matt Benson a écrit : > >> The most immediate thing is that [proxy] 2 needs a unary predicate. >> It becomes ridiculous for every component we have to define such a >> basic interface in a different way. So [proxy] 2 can never be >> released without a [functor] release, etc. > > Maybe the Predicate class from [collections] could be reused since [proxy] > already depends on this component? > Nice try, but I'll sooner use Hamcrest. Thanks, though, for bringing my attention to the fact that [proxy] 2's dependencies need to be reviewed. ;)
> >> This is indeed sufficient for the immediate future, but again, becomes >> *insufficient* soon enough. I don't personally see what purpose is >> served by a 0.x release, but I have to say it's frustrating to work on >> a component and only when a release is proposed does everyone who >> couldn't have cared less before come out of the woodwork to suddenly >> find design issues (issues such as undocumented @SuppressWarnings come >> down to personal opinion and I would personally argue they shouldn't >> be release blockers, particularly as more often than not the >> justification is obvious). For those of you who have suddenly decided >> you care about this component: if we discuss and resolve the >> fundamental design concerns (i.e. no promises beyond reaching >> consensus), can you stay engaged long enough for us to get this >> wrapped up? > > Sorry but that's what released candidates are for. You can't expect everyone > to monitor every project continuously, especially the sandbox stuff. > Releasing a RC is the right moment to ask for reviews since the code is > arguably stabilized. Hmm, let's meet somewhere in the middle and say we should have done an official alpha or beta. :P > > You'll note that I didn't vote -1 on the release, I just spent 2 hours to > review the code and shared my observations thinking it would be useful, I appreciate the time spent. > but > I won't block the release if you think my points are irrelevant. I want to address your points on their own merits. Hence my "no guarantees" clause. > Feel free > to release Functor as is and I won't bother you again. But if you take my > observations seriously I'll happily stay engaged with this project. Great! > > As a side note, in general I wish there were more design/usability reviews > on RC calls than checkstyle/compilation verifications. Again, maybe we should try to steer toward a general practice of doing at least an alpha prior to 1.0 so we know when to expect to have these discussions. Phil's note about the release plan would indicate a lapse on mine and Simo's part as well. Thanks all, Matt > > Emmanuel Bourg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
