Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 58243 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2004 14:37:06 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Nov 2004 14:37:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 58676 invoked by uid 500); 10 Nov 2004 14:37:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 58567 invoked by uid 500); 10 Nov 2004 14:37:00 -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 58550 invoked by uid 99); 10 Nov 2004 14:36:59 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,RCVD_BY_IP X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [66.51.199.81] (HELO mail5.dslextreme.com) (66.51.199.81) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 06:36:55 -0800 Received: (qmail 31394 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2004 14:36:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.10.10]) (66.51.196.164) by 192.168.8.93 with SMTP; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:36:03 +0000 Message-ID: <41922752.20605@dslextreme.com> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 06:36:02 -0800 From: Ralph Goers User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: Woody and portal-fw in 2.2? References: <939f0a1494fa73af1ab0028a.20041109135157.enycu.tbref@www.dslextreme.com> <33400.10.0.0.58.1100089233.squirrel@10.0.0.58> In-Reply-To: <33400.10.0.0.58.1100089233.squirrel@10.0.0.58> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1 (http://amavis.org/) X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Antonio Gallardo wrote: >Ralph Goers dijo: > > >>Why are these blocks even in 2.2? They are excluded from the build but >>they are deprecated in 2.1 and have replacements. >> >>Can they be removed? >> >> > >It depends, the "politic" is: deprecate and 2 version later remove them. > >Best Regards, > > I think we need to clarify (or maybe just I do). The way I am used to looking at product numbering you have V.R.M.x where 'V' is the version, 'R' is Release, 'M' is modification level and x is a minor change (usually not done). I believe the policy is deprecate in a modification level and remove 2 levels later. We'd be leaving things in a long time if we waited two versions. They were deprecated in 2.1.5.1. To me, the policy means they can be removed in 2.1.7. I don't recall what we said about changes across releases, but it seems reasonable to me that if they were deprecated in 2.1.5 that, at least at this point, they could be removed in 2.2.0. Ralph