Diana Shannon wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 11:13 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>>
>>> Perhaps it's just the nature of open source software, that a
>>> tremendous amount of energy is unleashed right before a release date.
>>> Perhaps there's no other way. Still, it feels, to be honest, like
>>> poor planning. If we follow the maxim of "release early, release
>>> often" I fail to see why there needs to be this kind of disruption
>>> before releases. If the releases weren't spaced so far apart, what
>>> difference would it make if we need to wait a little longer for some
>>> new capability?
>>
>>
>> This is a very good point. So, do you suggest to postpone
>> forrestization for post-2.1? say for 2.1.1?
>
>
> Not necessarily. It depends on how much time we still have. And
> forrestization can occur in stages.
>
> For example, current forrest build capability with cocoon's cvs is ony
> possible with Forrest CVS, not the last Forrest release. This violates
> your "building on sand" philosophy. We can change our cvs to work with
> 0.4 Forrest, but it involves committing doc-v11 versions of many files
> and deciding what to do with doc-v10-related files. If we simply
> eliminate the doc-v10 files, we will break the separate doc-building
> capabilities of our webapp documentation set. If we keep both versions,
> we have a maintenance nightmare. This is being discussed on cocoon-docs,
> with debate on how/if to include Forrest itself in our cvs, but there's
> no consensus yet, IMHO. Whatever solution is decided may take some time
> and tweaking to implement, that's all. And I would hate for it to hold
> up a release.
All right. Since there is circular dependency between cocoon and
forrest, I would suggest we release cocoon 2.1 first, allow forrest to
release a new version based on 2.1 and at that point forrestize our docs.
how does that sound?
Stefano.
|