cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira>
Subject Re: 2.2 vs 3.0, or 2.2 then 3.0?
Date Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:04:56 GMT
hepabolu wrote:
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>> Upayavira wrote:
>>> So, 2.2 = important, and 3.0 = important. Both.
>>> We need to avoid discussions, implications, emotions, etc that suggest
>>> otherwise.
>> Right.  If any of that has gone on, I'm sure its unintentional.  If
>> memory serves me correctly, Cocoon 2 was written as a branch, and
>> Maintenance was happening on Cocoon 1 for a while.
>> There did come a time when work stopped on Cocoon 1, but that was
>> after Cocoon 2 was released.
>> Basically, new/exciting stuff should go in Cocoon 3, and touch ups to
>> Cocoon 2 until Cocoon 3 is ready for prime time.
> Fine, but times might be much more hectic now with less people having
> less time to contribute to either version. There is still the 2.1 branch
> to maintain as well.
> So I think that the time of maintaining 2 versions (actually 3) should
> be as short as possible and that apart from the current Maven and blocks
> nothing new should be added to 2.2, however exciting that may be.

Actually, I tend to disagree. As has been pointed out, this is open
source, so an exciting new 3.0 project could easily bring fresh blood,
thus not depleting 2.x at all.

> More important I think is not only defining the "vision of Cocoon 3.0"
> as precisely as possible (so all jumping up and down now, know exactly
> where to jump in), and coming up with a roadmap, but also to try and
> define/write conversion tools (however simple) almost from the beginning
> that can ease the transition from 2.1/2.2 to 3.0. If the tedious 60% can
> be done automatically, it shows the current user base they are not
> abandoned.


> write something, give an example and make sure the docs stay up-to-date.

And with Daisy in place, this should be much easier.

Regards, Upayavira

View raw message