Re: [jgit-dev] Dropping storage.dht package

[Dave Borowitz <dborowitz@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Not to derail this entirely, but may I propose if we're revving to 3.0 that we consider moving some "public" classes that are really implementation details to internal packages? I know we've been annoyed in the past by being unable change things deep in, say, org.eclipse.jgit.transport that are "public APIs" by Eclipse's definition but nobody should really be depending on.

Of course, the bikeshedding discussion of what APIs should remain really public may take up so much time that we decide it's more effort than it's worth. But I thought I'd throw it out there.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Markus Duft <markus.duft@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 08/15/2012 01:20 AM, Shawn Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

>
> OK. I will prepare a change within the next day or two to delete the
> DHT code. We may have to rev to 3.0 as a result of that change going
> in, but I really don't think anyone would really notice.

rev 3.0 would be great anyway for some other API breaking changes ([1], [2]). you could just vote them in then xD

[1] https://git.eclipse.org/r/5337
[2] https://git.eclipse.org/r/5373

Regards,
Markus

> _______________________________________________
> jgit-dev mailing list
> jgit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jgit-dev
>
_______________________________________________
jgit-dev mailing list
jgit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jgit-dev