Re: Mediation attempt (was Re: [Libxmlplusplus-general] resume of one day's work)

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Hi Christophe,

Christophe de VIENNE wrote:

> I won't give reason to one or another of the protagonists, I just don't want 
> the good work of both of you not to be loosed for libxml++. You both have 
> more experience than me and you cannot image how I appreciate your 
> participation on the project.

thanks for the encouraging words. Yes indeed, I'd *much* appreciate to
keep our *common* efford going. While working together can be hard at
times, I definitely think it is worth the efford.

> Stefan, the last modifications you added are definitly good ones, but to 
> preserve everybody's nerves, we'll keep them (iterator stuffs) on the 
> unstable branch, and the future 1.0 version will keep the current API.

ok, I'm fine with that. But please lets have a close look at the old API
and clearly identify the problems with it. There are quite a number of
places where the code will either leak or at least not be clear enough
to developers as to what happens, and what the user/developer is
expected to do (my old song of ownership semantics...)

In fact, I think we should go over the changes (I *did* try hard to keep
each individual commit in focus on a precise and atomic goal) and
evaluate whether they present a fix that's worth preserving for the 1.0
stable branch or not. For example the redefinition of AttributeMap is -
while a major API change - clearly a fix of a memory leak.

> As Murray always did on this project, I invite you to warn us if you're going 
> to commit some changes (backward compatible or not) in the API, so such 
> situations won't (I hope) happen again.

ok. Again, I did discuss all of my changes on the list. May be I should
have waited longer for feedback, but there were either no or only
positive comments to the issues I addressed, so I didn't anticipate any
opposition.

> Some discussions we had about evolution of the lib were implicitly concerning 
> the future unstable branch. I could have been more explicit about it, sorry.
> 
> Now I let you both "laver votre linge sale entre vous" ;-)

d'accord (hors de la liste de courriels si possible).

Kind regards,
		Stefan