cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Antonio Gallardo" <>
Subject Re: FOM blocking 2.1 release
Date Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:01:50 GMT
Stefano Mazzocchi dijo:
> We have a horrible time following good release early and often practices
> and the more we go, the worst.

Hi Stefano!

Nice to see you back from Peru, instead of stay there as you suggested in
your blog! ;) This could be a big loss for Cocoon! Gladly (for us), you
choiced go back home!

> You all know that I'm not happy with the current FOM design because of
> the based on the concept of "let's try to do everything", while I favor
> the approach "do the simplest thing that can possibly work" and add
> stuff as you go.
> The FOM will be a critical contract for Cocoon 2.1 usage. Just like the
> sitemap was for Cocoon 2.0. We spent 18 months designing the sitemap
> contract. It paid off.

Well, currenlty we are at the middle of the 18 months.... :)
> No, I don't want to postpone 2.1 for 18 months to cleanup the FOM, also
> because few people will use it if it's considered alpha stuff.
> Chris suggests we release 2.1 without bothering the FOM because it will
> need time to adjust anyway. I agree, but what really worries me is the
> fact that we *already* know it's going to change radically and releasing
> such a bad contract is not going to be good publicity for cocoon in
> general from contract solidity perspective.
> you can mark it as beta as much as you like, but people are going to
> discover it, fall in love with it, use it for testing, then pressured by
> their bosses, put it in production, then ask support for it, or at least
> a back compatibility layer.
> Do you really want to force our users to go thru this? I don't.
> Cocoon is highly respected for its contract solidity.
> At the same time, I don't want to block the release further. So there is
> the plan:
>  1) I will try to patch the FOM for the proposed plan for June 24th.
>  2) If I can't do it, we release with what we have and we state loud and
> clear that the FOM contract should be considered unstable and that might
> change in future releases.
> What do you think?

I agree. But... what about the other well knowed problems like action-sets
(currenlty not working) and similars? I think we cannot release a new
version that does not support this types of old features. What you think?

Antonio Gallardo

View raw message