Sorry for my German directness, it was not meant as personal offense.
but as we did not participate in the discussion we need to hold ourselves equally accountable for any decisions made.
Well, there have been words of caution even from the former Spec Lead. So I was rather sure they will not make it into the spec. But yes, I figured too late that I was wrong with this assumption.
And the other parts I criticise (mandatory cdi-lite, etc). Those tickets got opened a while before the spec went final. It's not that Romain and I didn't tell anyone that some of the ideas might create problems. We (and a few others btw) really got ignored. Valid CDI tickets, PRs and spec challenges got bulk closed etc. That's not how things should run imo.
But let's not discuss formalities. Let's discuss the factual matter: should an empty beans.xml still be allowed or not? So far it was perfectly valid. And with the version > 1.1 there was a perfect rule already in place without breaking anything. So why switch the default if (at least that's what I understood from Jasons reply, right?) empty beans.xml should be avoided in the future?
LieGrue,
strub
Am 24.02.2023 um 19:14 schrieb David Blevins <dblevins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Really, this change makes no sense, sorry.
I think we need to be very careful about sentences like that. It’s ok to not agree,
but as we did not participate in the discussion we need to hold ourselves equally accountable for any decisions made.
The best outcome is we don’t blame others for decisions they made without our help, they don’t blame us for our lack of help, and we mutually understand we were all doing the best we could and keep focused on what we can control which is what we do next.
My $0.02
-David
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev