Re: [logs] EventLog library

From: Darren Reed (avalonat_private)
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 01:18:23 PST

  • Next message: Buck Buchanan: "RE: [logs] Windows Event Log Analysis"

    In some mail from Balazs Scheidler, sie said:
    > On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 03:27:04PM +1100, Darren Reed wrote:
    > > This is completely off topic but hopefully the mod will let me
    > > rant a little bit about one of the more unprofessional aspects
    > > of "open source software development"...
    > > 
    > > >
    > > 
    > > Sigh, yet another software package we're being encouraged to
    > > use that the author doesn't feel is upto at least 'version 1.'
    > > 
    > > If you're going to make it public, call it version 1.0.
    > The API is still quite vague, so the version number only indicates that it
    > is a development version. Once the API becomes stable it will be versioned
    > 1.0.
    Ok, so what you're saying is that you're wasting time by implementing
    a library to an interface that has not yet been finalised.
    As nice and easy as it is to cut code, "don't do that".
    Get the detailed design right, THEN cut code.
    Code isn't needed to critique a proposed API.
    > I don't thing the version number alone means anything 'unprofessional'. And
    > by the way the library was not fully publicized, it was a release for the
    > log-analysis mailing list for review.
    and it is an open, public mailing list.
    > It is not yet in 1.0 state and versioning is usually nothing else but
    > personal preferences. 
    Well tell us about it when it is, not before.
    LogAnalysis mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 08 2003 - 08:08:41 PST