Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <4086BD3D.40408@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:28:13 +0200
From: Joerg Heinicke <joerg.heinicke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RT] Versions
References: <OF912D078B.4248249E-ONC1256E7C.0038B11A@sundn.de>
In-Reply-To: <OF912D078B.4248249E-ONC1256E7C.0038B11A@sundn.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 20.04.2004 12:28, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

>>On the other hand I didn't get the feeling that there were 
>>many problems when upgrading from 2.0 to 2.1. This might be 
>>due to not upgrading at all of course.
>>Probably users start a project with a specific Cocoon 
>>version/the latest release at this time. During the project 
>>they do only the minor upgrades. When starting the next 
>>project they use the latest available version at that time 
>>again. So upgrade problems might be only rarely reported.
> 
> There were many complains from users that upgrading from 2.0.x
> to 2.1 wasn't that easy.

Really? I never got this impression. On the list or from your customers? 
Not that this will have any impact on the result of this discussion ... 
just curious.

> Yes, a clear matching is required. We would have the clear matching
> of "Any cocoon version >= 2.1 is in the cocoon-2.1 repository" :)

*prust* really good.

Renaming it without any impact should even possible with CVS. Otherwise 
we can wait til the move to SVN.

> Ok, but we don't need to make a repository
> just because we change the version number. It only makes sense
> if we continue the development. We end up in to many repositories
> that are actually unused.
> I don't see any problem with branching a previous version if
> the need arises.

Ok, convinced - and this lazy branching is much better than the eager 
branching we have at the moment.

Joerg