Darren, > 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. In general I agree. But we all have noticed bouncing the same ideas ever and ever again in a circle on this list. I at least have the feeling that code helps us to come to the point. It kind of forces so... > Code isn't needed to critique a proposed API. Look at the actual amount of code... I can barely envison that changes are hard to apply. And the waste will be very limted... > > > 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. Hey Darren, how do you get people to comment, if you don't tell them ;). Honestly, I am the closed-source guy and I have so often been told that this is the real strength of open source. Timely and (massive) peer review - oops how am I sounding ;) Rainer _______________________________________________ LogAnalysis mailing list LogAnalysisat_private http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 08 2003 - 08:08:51 PST