cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From leo leonid <>
Subject Re: current CVS: XSP broken
Date Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:03:36 GMT

On Mar 24, 2004, at 3:54 AM, Joerg Heinicke wrote:

> 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.
no need, I was *not* complaining, as you see...

>> 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.

Subject:    "AbstractXMLProducer patch consequences"

> I assume that people living from CVS also read the developers list.

I do. But IMO you can't assume your mail (with that subject) could get 
the needed visibility.

> 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").

I think I see your point, but I ask you to keep proportions in mind.


(the following seems to be a misunderstanding, probably due to my bad 
english skills, sorry!)

>> 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

View raw message