Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 66072 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2003 13:43:08 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Dec 2003 13:43:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 79899 invoked by uid 500); 14 Dec 2003 13:43:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 79867 invoked by uid 500); 14 Dec 2003 13:43:01 -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 79850 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2003 13:43:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.gmx.net) (213.165.64.20) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Dec 2003 13:43:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 864 invoked by uid 65534); 14 Dec 2003 13:43:00 -0000 Received: from Afdc8.a.pppool.de (EHLO gmx.de) (213.6.253.200) by mail.gmx.net (mp026) with SMTP; 14 Dec 2003 14:43:00 +0100 X-Authenticated: #3483660 Message-ID: <3FDC68E2.202@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:42:58 +0100 From: Joerg Heinicke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: de-de, de, en-us, en-gb, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: Status of 2.2 - Continuing? References: <001e01c3c247$828337d0$98506bc2@WRPO> In-Reply-To: <001e01c3c247$828337d0$98506bc2@WRPO> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 On 14.12.2003 14:38, Reinhard Poetz wrote: >>>Hi, >>> >>>whats the current status regarding the tree processor in 2.2? >>> >>>As the tree processor is the central component that is >>>required to run cocoon and as we currently just can't start >>>2.2 to test/implement anything else, I think we should see >>>that we get a runnable 2.2 asap. >>> >>>What do you think about just installing the tree processor >> >>from 2.1? >> >>I was planning on working on the tree processor for 2.2 next >>week and during the holidays. I've been extremely busy at >>work for the past few weeks (am in the office right now) but >>this will be over after tomorrow's deadline. >> >>I don't know how long it's going to take me to get the tree >>processor into a workable state. The changes that need to be >>made are extensive so there will be a test period after >>things start to work as well. I'd say, I'll probably be able >>to put in enough time to get it working over Xmas. > > I'm +1 to give you the requested time frame. Have a deeper look into the > code and give us feedback after Xmas how long it will take you. If you > say it's too much time we can jump back then. I don't think we should do > it now and if you say that it's too much work we can install the 2.1 > version then. But I don't think it is a good idea to jump back right > now. Same opinion here: give Unico the time and switch back in the new year if necessary (though it would not be a good start into it). Joerg