cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <>
Subject Re: Renaming Corona to Cocoon 3.0 and infrastructure
Date Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:41:29 GMT
Reinhard Pötz wrote:

> Versioning
> -------------------------------
> For Cocoon 2 there have been proposals that all odd versions are
> development/alpha versions and all even versions are stable releases.
> I like this idea and propose that we follow this versioning schema in
> Cocoon 3: All 3.0.x releases are marked as development versions and we
> clearly explain this on the website and the READMEs of all artifacts.
> When we believe that the community and the technology are stable, we do
> a 3.1.0 release.
> I think this is less confusing than appending alpha, beta or milestone
> postfixes.

I would say the contrary. Let's not forget that most of our users aren't 
hard-core developers (they love Cocoon because they can do complex stuff 
without programming) and they aren't used to this odd/even versioning 
scheme that comes from the Linux kernel.

Rather than that, it seems to me that most of the "normal" (i.e. non 
hard-core hacker) people consider a version without any "beta", 
"milestone" or other suffix as an official stable release. A well-known 
example is Firefox that goes through a series of milestones, beta and RC 
version before releasing a stable version with the same number. Eclipse 
does the same.

Also, I haven't voted for the renaming Corona to Cocoon 3.0 as I was on 
vacation, but I really think this is too early. Cocoon 2.2 is just out 
and we announce a 3.0. This will most probably lead people to consider 
2.2 as a transition to 3.0 and just not use it, and thus just look 
elsewhere. Stated clearly, I have fears that just as Maven almost killed 
the developer community for 2.2, announcing a 3.0 now will kill the user 

My 0.02 euros.


Sylvain Wallez -

View raw message