cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geoff Howard <coc...@leverageweb.com>
Subject Re: [RT] Separation of Blocks and Avalon
Date Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:56:58 GMT
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> 
> On Friday, Oct 10, 2003, at 10:44 Europe/Rome, Ryan Hoegg wrote:
> 
>> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, Oct 10, 2003, at 09:44 Europe/Rome, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm more and more thinking that we should do one thing after the other:
>>>> first creating our blocks and than moving to fortress or merlin.
>>>> Or the other way round, if someone things that it makes more sense.
>>>> But we should avoid doing both at the same time.
>>>
>>> +10000000
>>>
>> In that case, is it possible to incrementally develop the blocks in 
>> the 2.1 repository while Berin works on the container in the 
>> soon-to-be 2.2 repository?
> 
> Potentially possible, but I wouldn't do it, we need to be able to keep 
> the 2.1 tree clean.
> 
> Berin, how long would you think it would take you to do the migration? 
> do you have a list of things that worry you most?
> 
> BTW, why can't we do the migration *after* we implement the blocks?
> 
> I mean, we have a system that works and a design that improves. cocoon 
> needs block far more than it needs a migration to a more modern avalon 
> container.

Well, there is still the hope that a new container will solve some of 
our problems for us and the danger that solving them ourselves will make 
the migration more painful.  I think no one knows whether either will 
happen because those who know Avalon best are a little shaky on Cocoon 
and vice-versa.

Berin has expressed several times a confidence that the migration to 
Fortress could be relatively quick (though apparently he's suffered a 
minor back injury and is not completely convinced of his own sanity!).

How about this proposal:

If Berin feels the migration can be quick (1 week?) we start a 2.2 repo, 
and let that be the only work that happens for that quick time frame in 
the 2.2 repo.  If possible we should all help with aspects of the 
migration so we don't "come home to a strange house" so to speak.

If it bogs down, reveals nightmarish problems, etc. we have the option 
of wiping clean, moving on with blocks immediately on ECM and worry 
about the migration later.

In any case, we have to (don't we?) regard the migration off ECM as 
inevitable and a little pain now is better than a lot of pain later.  A 
lot of pain now is not better than the same amount of pain later.  Which 
  case we're in should be apparent if we try the path proposed above.

Geoff


Mime
View raw message