gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <>
Subject Re: [vote] turning off nagging until we feel gump is solid enough for that
Date Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:36:15 GMT
At 05:27 PM 12/1/2004, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

>If you have a better social algorithm that would stop you from feeling 
>insulted, let us know what it is.

It's not about me, log4j or velocity, but coming to the realization
that 100% backward compatibility is not always possible. It seems that
gump is based on the premise that an item can be removed in version n,
if it has been deprecated on version k, where k < n. Although most
reasonable, this policy cannot always be followed, for legitimate

Don't understand me wrong, I very much appreciate Gump as a
service. For example, log4j developers would like to be notified of
changes in log4j CVS head that affect dependents. However, many
dependents do not need to be aware of these changes, only log4j
developers need to know about them. Before releasing the next version,
we will publish a step-by-step migration document. Detecting that
project V broke because of changes in project L, and then notifying
only L, is a lot more complicated than what gump does currently.
Surely that's asking too much out of Gump.

>Our goal is not to insult people or to create trouble.

Ditto here.


Ceki Gülcü

  The complete log4j manual:
  Professional log4j support:  

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message