cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reinhard Pötz <reinh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: A new name for Corona (take 2)
Date Tue, 05 Aug 2008 06:10:44 GMT
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> 
>> solprovider@apache.org wrote:
>>> Pick a number that will never be production for the experimental
>>> branch e.g. 2.7.  Skip a few numbers in case trunk needs another minor
>>> number (e.g. 2.3 and 2.4) and to avoid confusion that this branch is
>>> not the immediate successor to 2.2.  Do not use 2.9 in case a
>>> non-Corona pre-release branch is needed before 3.0.
>>> A number both distinguishes code compatibility and suggests the
>>> position in history better than a code name such as x.
>>> "cocoon-2.7-pipeline" is obviously not compatible with Cocoon-2.2 or
>>> Cocoon-3.0.  This also handles all possible futures:
>>> - The number suggests that the code becomes obsolete after 3.0 is
>>> released if the branch becomes 3.0 or is abandoned;
>>> cocoon-x-pipeline-1.0 does not.
>>> - The branch could become NewName-1.0 if the projects split.
>>> The Lenya project did this twice:
>>> - Production 1.2 branched to 1.4 for development of 2.0.
>>> - An experimental branch based on 1.2 incompatible with 1.4 was named 
>>> 1.3.
>>>
>> This sounds to me as the most pragmatic and simplest solution.
>>
>> We could start with version 2.7
> 
> Too complicated / confusing. I'd rather have us use 3.0, and if that 
> does not work out, we can skip that and start 4.0. It worked fine for 
> Tomcat, can work for us too.

You guys have finally convinced me. Let's use 3.0.x for Corona, clearly 
state that it is alpha software on the website in the README.txt of each 
release artifact and see what's happening.

Then we only need to find a package name that isn't used in trunk 
because Corona should run in parallel with Cocoon 2.2 without a problem 
(haven't tried it yet but at least in theory).

The simplest solution would be keeping 'corona' as part of the package 
name (org.apache.cocoon.corona). IIRC Tomcat also kept the 'catalina' 
package names.

Any other suggestions?

-- 
Reinhard Pötz                           Managing Director, {Indoqa} GmbH
                          http://www.indoqa.com/en/people/reinhard.poetz/

Member of the Apache Software Foundation
Apache Cocoon Committer, PMC member                  reinhard@apache.org
________________________________________________________________________

Mime
View raw message