Re: Re: a couple of quick questions

Just a suggestion.  I suggest CVS Branches as preferrable to code 
freezes.  You still need a code freeze just it only needs to last 5 
minutes or so.

Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:

> I think with all the shuffling of components around, we should do 
> another beta to ensure things are shaken out.  I think that beta 
> should be a code freeze as well, and we should try to get to a release 
> candidate.
>  
> I haven't stumbled over this problem with name/qualifiedName yet.  As 
> long as
> 1) You don't break the demos
> 2) You don't break the test suite
> 3) You extend the test suite to excercise the new code (as simple as 
> creating some pages that displays their name and pageName).
>  
> I'm perfectly good with things.
>  
> I'm going on a ski trip and will be out of the loop (no e-mail) until 
> friday.  I would suggest you put together whatever code you want over 
> the next few days and we can catch up, and vote on the next steps, friday.
>  
> Howard
>  
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Mindbridge <mailto:mindbridgeweb-/[email protected]>
>     *To:* Howard M. Lewis Ship <mailto:[email protected]>
>     *Sent:* Sunday, December 22, 2002 8:16 AM
>     *Subject:* a couple of quick questions
>
>     Hi Howard,
>      
>     Will there be a new beta because of the getQualifiedName() issue?
>      
>     I am asking because I would like to check in some major changes I
>     have done with the Table's column rendering (backward compatible
>     ones), and I am not sure that would be a good idea if there is no
>     another beta. What do you think? This should have been ready
>     earlier, but I did not like the previous design of the changes and
>     sat back at drawing board.
>      
>     With respect to getQualifiedName(), I personally think that it is
>     a showstopper, but that it will be very easy fix using the
>     renaming (having getName() and getPageName() instead of
>     getQualifiedName() and getName()). If you want, I can do that --
>     it is a relatively simple matter, and will affect (directly or
>     indirectly) very little code. The alternative way (implementing
>     the current specs) would definitely require your attention, I
>     think, since it has far reaching implications.
>      
>     Best regards for now,
>     -mb
>      
>      
>





-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf