cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Re: on better release and version management
Date Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:27:48 GMT

On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 11:39 Europe/Rome, Steven Noels wrote:

> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> <snip type="happy agreement"/>
>> I tried to address this issue several times in the last weeks, well, 
>> without much success.
>> One thing I want to stress again: *if* we would make a new repository
>> for 2.2 and duplicate all code, this would include the blocks as well.
>> So we would not only end up with the two versions to maintain for the 
>> core
>> but for each and every block as well! And this makes imho no sense. 
>> It's ok for the core, if we say 2.1 is only bug-fixing from now on. 
>> But it makes absolutely no sense for blocks. I think the development 
>> of blocks should be independent from the
>> development of the core. With duplicating the code we loose this.
>> So, whatever we decide, I'm -1 on duplicating the block code.
> My problem with the blocks code is that reusing the 2.1 blocks code 
> would force people to make blocks upwards-compatible, slowing down 
> transitioning between old- and new-style blocks.
> During the Hackathon on the 6th, I will be busy with GT preparations, 
> so I won't be able to participate much with the discussions. :-( 
> Anyway, please be assured that Bruno and I discussed the aspect of 
> compatibility at length, and IIRC Bruno has been jotting down notes 
> for this bound-to-be-happening IRL discussion. I don't think that we 
> can 1) require 2.2 compatibility by all blocks, since some of them are 
> only worked on by a few people, and 2) we should hinder progress on 
> 2.2 blocks by requiring them to be stuck in the 2.1 repository. I know 
> that we will try and do our best to keep the 2.1 version of Woody in a 
> sane state after 2.2 development starts, most probably also 
> backporting new things that happen along the 2.2 'branch'. Still, we 
> want a freeway for 2.2 development, should the need arise.
> Does that help? Or do I misunderstand your view on this matter?

A few points:

  1) there is no *block* code in cocoon 2.1, everything is done by the 

  2) blocks in 2.1 and blocks in 2.2 are a single block.xml file away.

This shows that it's entirely possible to implement real blocks in the 
cocoon-2.1 module, would we wish to do so


View raw message