Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Reply-To: <jefe182@earthlink.net>
From: "Jeff Ramsdale" <jefe182@earthlink.net>
To: <dev@cocoon.apache.org>
Subject: RE: on better release and version management
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:05:27 -0700
Message-ID: <MHEELOCNACIDACGCPOBGIEBPCHAA.jefe182@earthlink.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <776E9EB0-EEAE-11D7-AD24-000393D2CB02@apache.org>

See below...

> > What happens if we find out that a certain block is not supported any
> > more (technology outdated, we have a better block, any active
> > developers) *after* we marked it as supported. The first question I had
> > was "how long does supported mean"? The former proposed *certified*
> > relates to a certain point of time without saying something about the
> > future.

Whatever word is chosen will have to apply in situations where an
active/certified/supported/official block falls out of currency. That is, a
certified block can be decertified or a once-supported block can be later
designated unsupported.

> > Another point is that Cocoon is open source and nobody can be forced to
> > support a single line of code ...
> >
> > Maybe we can find a word that relates to a point of time and does not
> > have all the meanings "certified" has (see Berin's mail
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=106434951718170&w=2)
>
> official?

I prefer supported. It doesn't have the same weight of organizational
obligation that official and certified do. It simply says that the community
impression is that there are people who care about and know about the block
to the degree that they won't allow it to lie fallow. There's not an
explicit or implicit promise of support, simply an impression of community
support.

> --
> Stefano.

Jeff