Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 79176 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2003 18:41:25 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Sep 2003 18:41:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 8176 invoked by uid 500); 24 Sep 2003 18:41:13 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 8006 invoked by uid 500); 24 Sep 2003 18:41:12 -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 7993 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2003 18:41:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO host.leverageweb.com) (64.91.232.157) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Sep 2003 18:41:11 -0000 Received: from dhcp205169.hq.af.mil ([134.205.205.169] helo=leverageweb.com) by host.leverageweb.com with asmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1A2EX3-0003bt-00 for dev@cocoon.apache.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:38:33 -0400 Message-ID: <3F71E53B.8000802@leverageweb.com> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:40:59 -0400 From: Geoff Howard User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030425 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: on better release and version management References: <20030924183445.68213.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20030924183445.68213.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.leverageweb.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - cocoon.apache.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [0 0] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - leverageweb.com X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Timothy Larson wrote: > Maybe we are having a hard time finding the "right" word because we are > mixing concerns. I can think of roughly four separate things the user > of a module would want to know: > > (1) Is the module stable? > (i.e. is it considered to generally work properly with no critical bugs?) > (2) Will code written against it will work with future releases? > (i.e. will there be a back-compatibility effort made in new releases?) > (3) Will there likely be any future versions? > (i.e. is there still an active development person or community?) > (4) Are they the only guinea pigs actually using the module? > (i.e. is there an active user community?) > > On another tack, this information is mostly dynamic: > > While case (1) is usually static, but see the planned cocoon-2.1.1 -> 2.1.2 > release for an example of this being a little dynamic. For a stronger > example, think of a crypto module after a security hole is found and > fixed in a new release. The old version transitions from stable to condemed. > > Case (2) starts out as only an expression of intent and then transitions > when a new release is made to being an attribute of the new release that > reflects back on the release in question. > > Cases (3) and (4) are not direct attributes of the module, but rather are > attributes of the community that reflect back on the module. > > In all these cases, any meta-info included in a release can only represent > a snapshot in time. This is useful, but it would be better if it could be > combined with live meta-info retrieved from the module's source site upon > download, to account for reality drift over time. > > > Eventually it would be helpful for the source website to include the static > meta-info, live meta-info, and some pretty, graphical data from some community > data miners like Agora, etc. to help evaluate the liveliness of a module and > its developer and user communities. This could even be used by the developers > to help track what is used, what is causing problems, what can be retired, etc. >