Sunday, August 31, 2003, 2:21:15 AM, Jonathan Revusky wrote:
> Daniel Dekany wrote:
>> Saturday, August 30, 2003, 9:15:48 PM, Jonathan Revusky wrote:
>>>Attila Szegedi wrote:
>>>>I think I'd have some time this weekend to finally package 2.2.4. However, I
>>>>noticed that there are ongoing bugfixes in area of WS handling since they
>>>>were last backported to the 2.2.x CVS stream. Does anyone (I believe,
>>>>Jonathan primarily) want to take a shot at further backporting WS bugfixes
>>>>to 2.2.x tree, or should I just go ahead and release it as-is?
>>>Okay, after some thought, I backported all the WS handling changes to
>> What??? Jonathan, Attila said *bugfixes*. 2.2.x release *MUST* be 100%
>> compatible with 2.2. Hell, this is our only BC rule... you see, we break
>> BC, but the users of the outdated versions can get BC bugfix releases
>> without risk. 2.2.x-s have to be *strictly* BC. I suppose now you hate
>> me, as you have spent your energies with the back-porting, but sorry,
>> what can I say... do it back.
> I'd prefer to release 2.2.4 with the new WS rules. It's wrong on the
> grounds you say, but it gives us the chance to get some feedback.
After this, I would wonder if anything can be taken seriously we say or
write regarding BC... Again, the rule is that version are BC as far as
the second version number does not change. It has good reasons... let
the users obtain as much fixes and improvements without worrying about
that something will be broken when he replaces the freemaker.jar.
Exactly because we tend to do non-BC changes often, with the y.x+1
releases. The chance to get feedback is not a sufficient reason to break
this, unless you want to get feedback as "F**** you guys!" :)
> Also, if first-time users grab 2.2.4 and then later use 2.3.x, they
> won't have have to adjust to a WS handling change. (And meanwhile,
> nobody really has to use 2.2.4 over 2.2.3.)
Sorry, but what a total nonsense! Where would this logic lead to? Any
release can break BC, so the BC breaks in the next milestone release
will not be that socking?
> I think that, as long as we clearly tell people that 2.2.4 changes the
> WS handling rules somewhat, it's okay.
Our download page currently says:
WARNING! Currently, releases with different second version number (as
2.1.x and 2.2.x) are not compatible; please check the release notes in
the Manual if you must update freemarker.jar in a project. Releases
where only the third version number differs (as 2.2.1 and 2.2.2) are
Now we should add to the end of this that: ", except 2.2.3 and 2.2.4"?
:) LOL! This would be pathetic, you see... But, OTOH, it would show very
well the weak side of the FM project. ;)