Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
 designates 66.51.199.81 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4314A86E.6040508@dslextreme.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:41:50 -0700
From: Ralph Goers <Ralph.Goers@dslextreme.com>
Reply-To: rgoers@apache.org
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-1.4.1 (X11/20050719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: JING Transformer...
References: <251B34B1-3E0B-45CC-B0A3-6CD947ADED42@betaversion.org>
 <4314907B.8050501@reverycodes.com> <43149AB7.3080509@dslextreme.com>
 <4314A036.80605@reverycodes.com>
In-Reply-To: <4314A036.80605@reverycodes.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Vadim Gritsenko wrote:

> Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> Just so you know, if Cocoon Forms is still marked unstable I'll be 
>> voting -1.
>
>
> Does it mean Cocoon should go without release for a year? Would you 
> still vote -1 if CForms is not marked stable after 2 years? 3?

Yes. Cocoon without a stable and supported forms framework is a 
hinderence to its adoption and simply gives people an excuse to run off 
and use JSF or something besides Cocoon.  Also, we have lots of folks 
using the current implementation. We need to be at the point that we 
guarantee them that we won't be making incompatible changes at every 
release.

>
> I don't get it. We should do releases *more* often, not less.

True. On the 2.1.x branch this means primarily improvement in quality. 
On trunk it is primarily improvement in functionality/usability.  Now we 
have many blocks on 2.1.x that are marked unstable and it isn't a 
problem. But when you look at what we consider the "cocoon core" CForms 
is ALWAYS included. How can Cocoon be considered stable if one of its 
core components is unstable?

It can't.

>
> Vadim

Ralph