Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 81738 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2004 12:02:02 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Feb 2004 12:02:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 13715 invoked by uid 500); 6 Feb 2004 12:01:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 13663 invoked by uid 500); 6 Feb 2004 12:01:55 -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 13630 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2004 12:01:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.gmx.net) (213.165.64.20) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Feb 2004 12:01:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 24963 invoked by uid 65534); 6 Feb 2004 12:01:53 -0000 Received: from Afda0.a.pppool.de (EHLO gmx.de) (213.6.253.160) by mail.gmx.net (mp005) with SMTP; 06 Feb 2004 13:01:53 +0100 X-Authenticated: #3483660 Message-ID: <402382C3.6050209@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:04:19 +0100 From: Joerg Heinicke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: de-de, de, en-us, en-gb, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: Cocoon 2.0.5 release References: In-Reply-To: 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 06.02.2004 12:53, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >>>2.0.x? Do you really think there will be new releases in this branch? >> >>Yes, I would also like to see a 2.0.5 release as a final step for the >>2.0 branch. After this we will only release security patches or similar. >>But much effort has been put into the 2.0 branch in the more than half >>year from the 2.0.4 and the 2.1 release. I don't want to see it lost. >> >>But before the release we should solve the one issue with a broken batik >>JAR in 2.0: >>http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26392 > > I'm not against a 2.0.5 release, and I also think that it makes sense to > "close the branch"; but I'm not able to do a release before March. So, > I would be very happy if someone else would do it. > Releasing 2.0.x is much more work than 2.1 as it has binary distributions > which have to be tested against the different jdks etc. So be warned :) I can wait til March :p Joerg