Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 82656 invoked by uid 500); 12 Apr 2003 17:01:13 -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 82636 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2003 17:01:13 -0000 Received: from main.gmane.org (80.91.224.249) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Apr 2003 17:01:13 -0000 Received: from root by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 194OMo-0001n3-00 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2003 19:00:38 +0200 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 194OIi-0001ax-00 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:56:24 +0200 From: Stefano Mazzocchi Subject: Re: [proposal] rethinking distribution strategy Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:57:50 +0200 Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <3E9721D2.50403@apache.org> <20030412143624.GB3135@expresso.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030412 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <20030412143624.GB3135@expresso.localdomain> Sender: news X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N on 4/12/03 4:36 PM 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? Yes, that was implied in my thinking but no stated. Yes, that would be cocoon 2.1 beta 1 > +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. exactly. at least they will have a way to say which version they are based on. > When you say "code solid, API somewhat shaky", does the sitemap syntax > fall under API? I think it might be a good idea. Again, sorry, I wrote 'API' meaning "contracts". Yes, sitemap, flow and all that follows into the same category. -- Stefano.