cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [proposal] rethinking distribution strategy
Date Sat, 12 Apr 2003 15:35:14 GMT
On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 04:48:03PM +0200, Giacomo Pati wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2003, Jeff Turner wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 10:13:06PM +0200, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > ...
> > > I propose the following:
> > >
> > >  1) release Cocoon 2.1 beta *RIGHT NOW*.
> >
> > How about "beta 1", to establish the notion that there could be quite a
> > few of these things before 2.1 final?
> 
> There are many ways to go. Many OSS projects use the "Release Candidate" term
> for the one after the beta (i.e. Axis).
> 
> > +1 to the general idea.  I'm sure many projects, like Forrest and Lenya,
> > have internally standardized on a certain snapshot that meet their
> > criteria for stability.  This formalizes that practice.
> >
> > When you say "code solid, API somewhat shaky", does the sitemap syntax
> > fall under API?  I think it might be a good idea.
> 
> Well, I don't think we have alot of shaky APIs. Most part of them are solid and
> stabilized, isn't it?

The sitemap syntax changed in backwards-incompatible ways between 2.0 and
2.1 (for example, map:pipelines -> map:pipes).  Right now, a sitemap with
the namespace "http://apache.org/cocoon/sitemap/1.0" could be for 2.0, or
2.1 (CVS); there's no way to tell.  I gather the plan was to change the
namespace (to "http://apache.org/cocoon/sitemap/2.0" I suppose) at the
first beta.  I'm asking: should we change the namespace (implying syntax
stability), or keep the "...sitemap/1.0" namespace, and reserve
"...sitemap/2.0" for a genuinely stable 2.1-final release?  I'd vote for
the latter as a more conservative approach that doesn't risk "polluting"
/2.0, like what happened to /1.0.


--Jeff



> Giacomo

Mime
View raw message