cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joerg Heinicke <joerg.heini...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: current CVS: XSP broken
Date Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:54:19 GMT
On 20.03.2004 21:42, leo leonid wrote:

> Exactly, nobody, neither I did, that was not my concern.
> Please take a moment and try to see it from my perspective.

I did not expect that you or anybody specific answers on this temporary 
problem, but *that* anybody answers.

> I use the CVS version for developing, and I'm aware of the implications, 
> that things can change or even break by the ongoing development process. 
> May be it is just a coincidence, or it may be due to the fact that you 
> are one of the most active committers - anyhow -  your last commits put 
> my projects in a fine mess.

Sorry for that.

> Well, this happens, it's not the point, 
> absolutely no problem, in general.
> 
> Whereas I do have some objections, but these only concern the avoidable 
> parts of the mess. That's when you _see_ your patch isn't mature at all 
>  and it breaks core parts of cocoon,

This was the reason that I sent a mail to the list. I assume that people 
living from CVS also read the developers list. Therefore I would not 
update my Cocoon if I knew that something is broken. Of course we avoid 
non-working as far as possible, but there also must be some time to 
discuss about things. If something is broken this highers the need for 
discussion while maybe somebody would not answer if it's not broken 
(lazy ass syndrom, "let it as it is").

> or spoils users project directories 
> (as with bug 27600)

Huh? Sorry, but here I feel innocently accused. *I* added the behaviour 
that the source directory is not touched at all until you choose 
otherwise after the complete update worked. Furthermore this helper 
target was only a few days old, it's not something that breaks anything 
(i.e. is needed at run time) and was easily changeable by the developer 
using the target by putting the xslt part into comments. Here the need 
to revert was very much lower than for the above XSP problem IMO.

> and you still don't consider to revert it.

Why? Are you still not satisfied with the current solution making the 
xslt part optional? (You wrote the above two days after I added this.)

> Anyway, glad to hear you fixed it. Thanks.

No problem.

Joerg

Mime
View raw message