cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Antonio Gallardo" <agalla...@agssa.net>
Subject Re: [RT] Some notes about the 'Real Blocks' issue
Date Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:39:16 GMT
Niclas Hedhman dijo:
> On Saturday 16 October 2004 04:55, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>> Because they have been around forever *AND* they don't change their
>> contracts overnight.
>
> Your talk is not entirely reflected by the actions of the community.
> I
> just
> did a svn up on the 2.1 branch;
>
> A  lib/endorsed/xalan-2.6.1-dev-20041008T0304.jar
> D  lib/endorsed/xalan-2.6.0.jar
>
> Why does the 2.1 branch require a timestamped/snapshot version of Xalan,
> if everything is so fine and dandy with it?
> Antonio makes the following motivation in the commit message;
> "Update xalan to 2.6.1-dev-20041008T0304"
>
> Just curious.

Hi Niclas,

sorry for the delay answer. I had a lots of mails waiting to me and I am
just trying to keep the rythm of the list.....I will try to explain what
happened below....nut first, let me explain why I disagree with you:

Contrary to what you wrote. The rule (or contract) has been followed as
long as we can. We try the most we can to stick to a released version. If
you compare the lastest cocoon releases with older ones, you will see that
we are distributing more released jars than ever.

Of course, this no a 100% applied rule to all jars, because some jars
takes longer to release or have diferent release cycles than me. As a
sample take the jexl. They never released a version for long time. What we
did were just to bundle a CVS version of that. And we stick to them as
longer as we can. And that means we keep the contract.

And yes, there are some exceptions to the rule (or contract). We use
"common sense" while deciding when we can broke this rule. Sample:

When an important bug is fixed on a 3rd party jar (from our POV) that has
a current released version that seems to be important to us, we can
replace it with a CVS version that include the fix.

Now, why I updated Xalan:

1-Sylvain explained here on the list that I updated the jar because it
fixed a Cocoon bug:

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28680

It is amazing to see that the bug was reported first in Cocoon and later
in Xalan. BTW, here is the xalan report:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30142

2-David Crossley from Forrest requested me to build a new xalan because
they need to fix this bug (marked as critical) before they release 0.6.
Forrest tests was successfull. This happened the weekend before the
hackathon....

3-In the hackathon I found the same bug on the table and I thought that
will be OK to fix it. I asked some people at GT, because I had concerns
about to introduce again a new CVS snapshot in our code. Here I want to
state that is not important to whoms I asked. This is not the point here.
The important point is that we agreed that introduce a CVS snapshot
version since we found a valid case that will fix an important bug.

4-Please note that I am also following our contracts, even in the name of
the file:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=108841815706318&w=2

At the end, it a big shame to me that my work is being used against our
community. Seems that I need to be more careful.

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo


Mime
View raw message