Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 22419 invoked by uid 500); 29 Apr 2003 10:06:14 -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 22404 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2003 10:06:13 -0000 Received: from mail.s-und-n.de (212.8.217.2) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 29 Apr 2003 10:06:13 -0000 Received: from mail.s-und-n.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.s-und-n.de (postfix) with ESMTP id 52D2EAE0A6 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:06:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from notes.sundn.de (ntsrv5.sundn.de [10.10.2.10]) by mail.s-und-n.de (postfix) with ESMTP id 311ED92E9C for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:06:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hw0386 ([10.10.2.65]) by notes.sundn.de (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with SMTP id 2003042912062654:11739 ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:06:26 +0200 From: "Carsten Ziegeler" To: Subject: RE: [Ann] Apache Cocoon 2.1 Milestone 1 Release Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:07:34 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <017e01c30e36$47d26720$a52efea9@kpiroumian> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 29.04.2003 12:06:26, Serialize by Router on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 29.04.2003 12:06:26, Serialize complete at 29.04.2003 12:06:26 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Konstantin Piroumian wrote: > > Shouldn't we create a separate version of Cocoon site for 2.0 and 2.1 > branches? > Now Changes on the site reflect the 2.0.5 version and the announcement > doesn't mention any changes. > Yes, I know - we discussed this several times and came to the conclusion that the full list of changes from the status.xml is too much for the user. We decided to flag changes, but as this has not happened yet, we do not mention the changes. > Maybe its Ok for a milestone release, but where the users will > learn what's > new and what has changed in this version? > I think we should update the site to the 2.1 docs. What do others think? Carsten