Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 39169 invoked by uid 500); 26 Feb 2003 08:27:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 39091 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 08:27:49 -0000 Received: from main.gmane.org (80.91.224.249) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 08:27:49 -0000 Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nwum-0008JC-00 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:27:44 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: from news by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18nwum-0008J3-00 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:27:44 +0100 From: Martin Holz Subject: Re: [RT] what cocoon is doing wrong Date: 26 Feb 2003 09:27:58 +0100 Lines: 39 Message-ID: <83k7fnphtd.fsf@bog.fiz-chemie.de> References: <3E5BBC11.5050205@apache.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Artificial Intelligence) Sender: news X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N "Carsten Ziegeler" writes: > I would like to a add one more point: Most of us do not care about > releasing new versions. We *must* come back to release often - release > early. But each time, we try to get a new version out, someone comes > up and says: Wait XYZ is not finished/working/discussed right now, > we should first get this working. Or even worse, someone starts something >and leaves it in an uncomple > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > Now, to your points: > > > | never commit code that depends on non-released stuff | > > > I really would agree to this policy, if it is possible to follow. Now, in > theory that sounds really great and easy, but in practice it's near to > impossible. Think of the problems for example we had months/years > ago with severe bugs in Xalan or Xerces. We had to use the latest > CVS in order to get Cocoon running as the released stuff was not > working. > And what does released mean? One could argue that an alpha version > is a released version ;) > I would like to relax the policy a little bit to: > Never release a stable version that depends on non-released stuff (where > released version has to be at least stable in API). If I followed the policy of not relying on non-released stuff, I would be limited to coconn 2.0.4 :-(. While I feel muche more comfortable with release stuff, that't not a option for me. I would be very glad to see a 2.1 release soon. Martin -- Martin Holz Softwareentwicklung / Vernetztes Studium - Chemie FIZ CHEMIE Berlin Franklinstrasse 11 D-10587 Berlin