Re: superunstable

From: Miguel Arroz (arro..uiamac.com)
Date: Mon Feb 11 2008 - 08:37:51 EST

  • Next message: Pascal Robert: "Re: superunstable"

    Hi!

       Those are bad news... I ask you to reconsider, sir! :) Even if
    there are some initial bugs, it can't be worse than the current
    stuff, I say... besides it would be superunstable, which means "use
    at your own risk, and I'll only fix things if I have time, if you
    want it faster, do it yourself".

       Also, probably many of the funky things people do are made to
    avoid bugs on the current system anyway, so some funky stuff would go
    away with a clean build system.

       Yours

    Miguel Arroz

    On 2008/02/11, at 13:24, Mike Schrag wrote:

    >> Any news on that topic? Can't wait...
    >>
    >> I'm still stuck with 4606, as I could not get my projects working
    >> reliably with the changes to classpath handling in 4607 (there is
    >> already a unique instance of bundle "bla"...). After hours and
    >> hours of fiddling I finally gave up. Now the upcoming
    >> "superunstable" change could bring back the fun... :)
    >>
    >> Timo
    > I'm sort of in a holding pattern and having second thoughts ... If
    > I commit, I also commit myself to a lot of work, because the ant
    > build portion is most likely going to break in a lot of funky cases
    > (who knows what people do in those ant files). I don't know if I
    > want to deal with it right now, so I'm just putting it off. I'm
    > thinking about just fixing a couple of the notable regressions in
    > the current one -- the double selection of local + system
    > frameworks, the P/Whatever error during conversion, and the unique
    > framework bug -- which incidentally only doesn't happen to me
    > because I have a custom NSBundle that works around that problem.
    >
    >

    Miguel Arroz
    http://www.terminalapp.net
    http://www.ipragma.com





    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Feb 11 2008 - 08:38:55 EST