Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 9156 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2004 11:38:37 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Jun 2004 11:38:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 36213 invoked by uid 500); 14 Jun 2004 11:38:33 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 36177 invoked by uid 500); 14 Jun 2004 11:38:33 -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 36162 invoked by uid 99); 14 Jun 2004 11:38:32 -0000 Received: from [216.194.67.12] (HELO osmosis.gr) (216.194.67.12) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 04:38:32 -0700 Received: by osmosis.gr (Postfix, from userid 502) id 68F5B328173; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:38:12 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by osmosis.gr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C712D827C for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:38:12 +0300 (EEST) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:38:12 +0300 (EEST) From: gounis@osmosis.gr To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: [Plan] The future of Cocoon In-Reply-To: <92C87F03-AF21-11D8-9698-000A95984AEA@betaversion.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, 26 May 2004, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > On 26 May 2004, at 10:17, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > > Some things that come to my mind for 2.2: > > - first finished version of CForms. > > - deprecate XSP (and provide a viable alternative) many people talking about "deprecate XSP" but can i ask something? is any better alternative to produce xml quering databases? i think that until now the way ESQL-->XML--> any tranfrormation --> .. has no better alternative --stavros > > - cleaning up the caching/store mess > > - remove deprecated blocks etc. > > I like it, I like it! :-) (yep, twice). > > Starting on 2.2 to bring the current 2.1 to a level of complete > solidity of contracts and features is, IMVHO, an optimal idea, and puts > us in the position (also) to start using the Linux-like versioning > scheme. > > 2.2 will be our "stable" tree, and all crummy development (real blocks, > and you name it) can easily happen in 2.3 which will always be kept as > "unstable", to end up with a 2.4 release! :-P > > Now, the only thing I'm horrified about is that voice about a BRANCH in > our current CVS (aaarrrrggggghhhh)... I'd say we clear out the 2.2 CVS > repo and do a clean re-import of 2.1.5, or switch to Subversion now, > but purlllease don't add any branch in the tree... > > If someone wants, I can rename the 2.2 repository into a 2.3 straight > away (so that we ain't going to lose anything)... > > Pier > >