cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Reinhard Poetz" <reinh...@apache.org>
Subject RE: on better release and version management
Date Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:32:49 GMT

From: Antonio Gallardo [mailto:agallardo@agsoftware.dnsalias.com] 
 
> Reinhard Poetz dijo:
> >
> >> From: Bruno Dumon
> >
> >> > Carsten made a good proposal how we can continue having 3
> >> repositories
> >> > and how this can be done with only little code duplicating: 
> >> > 
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=106076740711234&w=
> >> > 2
> >> >
> >> > I'm +1 with his proposal - the reason is simple: Some people (and
> >> customers too!) asked me if we have gone crazy and how they can 
> >> update
> >> > Cocoon in the future without being alpha/beta-tester for
> >> 'real' blocks
> >> > and Fortress. We *must* be able to maintain 2.1 without all new
> >> features like blocks and Fortress because IMNSHO these 
> steps are to 
> >> big for 2.1 and I'm -1 on the changes in the current repository.
> >>
> >> I'm also +1 for starting a new repository, but I don't 
> like Carsten's 
> >> proposal that much. I'd rather see the entire repository 
> duplicated, 
> >> and move all development effort to the 2.2 repository. 
> Only bugfixes 
> >> should be applied to the 2.1 repository, and occasional 
> backports of 
> >> new functionality if anyone wants to.
> >
> >
> > Let's look which new features are planned for the next time 
> and when 
> > they will be ready for beta and for final release?
> >
> >  - real blocks
> >  - virtual sitemap components
> >  - intercepted flowscript
> >  - use Fortress as container
> >  - Cocoon Forms (aka Woody)
> >  - Cocoon Portals (new portal block)
> >
> > IMO the first four items should be part of 2.2 but the two 
> last items 
> > should be released earlier. Let's assume a szenario that the 
> > implementation of them takes very long (e.g. more than a 
> year until we 
> > reach a stable version). Do you really want to wait with 
> Cocoon Forms 
> > and Cocoon Portals such a long time (not to mention the many other 
> > blocks)? You can say now that you develop under 2.2 and you do 
> > occasional backports but IMO the problem is that e.g. 
> Cocoon Forms is 
> > tested with 2.2 but NOT with 2.1 and we say that 2.1 is our stable 
> > branch! Additionally we get a great mess with all our 
> blocks if they 
> > are duplicated, some are backported, some not and we 
> developers have 
> > to do a lot of work twice, work which is not real fun.
> >
> > That's the reason why I'm +1 with Carstens proposal:
> >
> >  - 2.1 repository containing all our blocks
> >  - 2.2 repository contains only the new stuff introduced by 
> the first
> >        four points from above
> >  - the 2.2 build mechanism is 'clever' enough to get all sources
> >    from 2.1 that are missing
> >
> > What do you think?
> 
> I think your proposal is OK. I was thinking for a while about 
> this and for my point of view the 2.2 is a major relase 
> (maybe it would be called 3.0). These 4 key points are a 
> radical change of how we can see at cocoon.
> 
> And as you pointed we can start the block construction and 
> continue the improvement of the current 2.1 branch (in forms 
> and portal) while starting a total new cocoon.
> 
> Of course the user interface will be preserved the most. 

Yes, the external contracts (must) remain mainly stable:

 - the use of the sitemap and it's components
 - cocoon.xconf
 - hot to implement your custom components

I think moving from 2.1 to 2.2(3.0) will not be more difficult (maybe
easier) than moving from 2.0 to 2.1 which takes you a few hours. And
IIUC the changes from the old to the new cocoon.xconf which is necessary
for Fortress can be done automatically with a stylesheet.

(This brings me to the point that we should publish which are our stable
and external interfaces ...)

> But 
> from the internals these is really a great new shaking if the 
> current code.
> 
> Is this correct?

I expect this and that's the reason why I think that a stable 2.2
release will take some time (I think that's not a matter of a few months
but much more) and why I like Carsten's proposal.

Reinhard
 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Antonio Gallardo
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message