Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 79453 invoked by uid 500); 4 Mar 2003 09:51:10 -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 79438 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 09:51:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pulse.betaversion.org) (217.158.110.65) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 09:51:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 23800 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 09:51:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO apache.org) (stefano@80.105.91.155) by pulse.betaversion.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 09:51:21 -0000 Message-ID: <3E647755.5000206@apache.org> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 10:52:21 +0100 From: Stefano Mazzocchi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030202 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Subject: Re: Stabilizing flow in order to release References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Matthew Langham wrote: >>At the same time, Cocoon 2.1-dev has to reach beta state ASAP since we >>are nearly feature complete and our internal cleanups and refactoring >>are working very well. [in a followup I will outline what's missing >>before release] >> > > > Just to add slightly to this from my area - there are quite a few large > companies using 2.1-dev (and happy with it). However they are having major > problems both internally (inside their corporations) and externally (being > able to announce publically that they are using Cocoon) because of the fact > that 2.1-dev is not at least beta. > > The longer this takes - the more likely that this could be damaging to > commercial adoption of Cocoon. Yep. Let's roll up our sleeves and do it. Executive summary for release schedule coming up next. -- Stefano Mazzocchi Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [William of Ockham] --------------------------------------------------------------------