Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <406BF4A5.60400@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 12:53:25 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Reinhard_P=F6tz?= <reinhard@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE RESULT] javaflow
References: <OF62DAADC7.E4451A21-ONC1256E69.00398A66@sundn.de>
 <406BF3C7.7070500@vafer.org>
In-Reply-To: <406BF3C7.7070500@vafer.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Torsten Curdt wrote:

>>> but then I'd propose to disable *all* unstable blocks
>>>
>>
>> Oh no, please not because this will lead to everyone wanting to 
>> declare his
>> favorite block "stable" :)
>
>
> don't wanna bitch around but... if you
> want prevent users to use unstable code
> (or at least make them aware of the fact)
> we should handle blocks all the same.
>
> and as you see with the midi block
> ...if we can consider it stable it'll
> become marked stable. no big deal.


I think so too. Either all unstable blocks are disabled or noone.

>
> I don't think "stable" has anything to
> do with preference but instead how it
> has proven to be stable in production
> over time.


... and IMO there must be more than one person willing to support it. 
(of course no guarantee that it will be supported forever but it 
increases the chances)

-- 
Reinhard