cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>
Subject Re: A new name for Corona (take 2)
Date Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:04:50 GMT
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.

Vadim

Mime
View raw message