Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 27641 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jul 2003 08:29:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 27620 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2003 08:29:03 -0000 Received: from mail.s-und-n.de (212.8.217.2) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Jul 2003 08:29:03 -0000 Received: from mail.s-und-n.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.s-und-n.de (postfix) with ESMTP id DB6B0C0E47 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:29:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from notes.sundn.de (ntsrv5.sundn.de [10.10.2.10]) by mail.s-und-n.de (postfix) with ESMTP id 8B803C0DF8 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:29:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hw0386 ([10.10.2.34]) by notes.sundn.de (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.8) with SMTP id 2003071510290124:4776 ; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:29:01 +0200 From: "Carsten Ziegeler" To: Subject: RE: [RT] Less is More, Finite State Machines and Balkanization Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:31:08 +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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3F12EFC3.7020206@verizon.net> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 15.07.2003 10:29:01, Serialize by Router on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 15.07.2003 10:29:01, Serialize complete at 15.07.2003 10:29:01 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > > >I think, for cocoon 2.2 with the "real blocks" we need to think about our > >cvs strategy anyway. Currently, we agreed to create a new cvs repository > >for each new major version, so we would have a cocoon-2.2 repository. > > > > Why not 2.1.1? What change *requires* version bump to 2.2? Good question. I expect that blocks required some changes in the core of cocoon, so the next version with blocks is not only a maintainance release, therefore a major version change. Minor version changes are intended usually only for bug-fixing. > Same repository will be used then, same blocks directories. IIRC, > directory layout for the "fake blocks" was made specifically to enable > "real blocks" without cvs restructuring. Meaning, we can develop "real > blocks" in 2.1 CVS and release as 2.1.1 or 2.1.2 or whatever/whenever it > will be. Ok, I only made the assumption that we will do blocks for 2.2; we haven't spoken about it in detail. If we decide to implement blocks in 2.1.x, it's ok for me. Whatever we choose we have to get to consensus very soon now. Carsten