Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 13350 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2004 18:03:52 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Mar 2004 18:03:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 52765 invoked by uid 500); 24 Mar 2004 18:03:40 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 52703 invoked by uid 500); 24 Mar 2004 18:03:40 -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 52670 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2004 18:03:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dominica.leonid.de) (212.87.38.135) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Mar 2004 18:03:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 12519 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2004 18:03:54 -0000 Received: from pd9e7b1e5.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO ?192.168.1.4?) (217.231.177.229) by 0 with SMTP; 24 Mar 2004 18:03:54 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) In-Reply-To: <4060F85B.7030404@gmx.de> References: <6C770C44-79BC-11D8-94FC-000A278D3A84@leonid.de> <405C5FF2.9070708@gmx.de> <26E5D2DE-7AAF-11D8-820D-000A278D3A84@leonid.de> <4060F85B.7030404@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <924CF700-7DBD-11D8-8F66-000A278D3A84@leonid.de> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: leo leonid Subject: Re: current CVS: XSP broken Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:03:36 +0100 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) 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 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. /leo (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 >