Mailing-List: contact cocoon-docs-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cocoon-docs@xml.apache.org
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:15:44 +0100 (CET)
From: Stephan Michels <stephan@apache.org>
To: cocoon-docs@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: [proposal] add Forrest binaries to our CVS
In-Reply-To: <3E7AF01C.8020401@dff.st>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303211210070.21909-100000@vern.chem.tu-berlin.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Torsten Curdt wrote:

> > Could we add a binary version of Forrest (including Cocoon binaries) to
> > our CVS repository so that everyone can generate the docs reliably from
> > the same version of Forrest, using it as a blackbox tool?

+1

>
> That would mean we would have to download cocoon "twice"?!

Yes, one that has been tested and work, and one that hopyfully
work ;-)

> I am -1 for inclusion in the cocoon repository as binary.
>
> But I am +10 for building cocoon from source and the use *that*
> version to generate the docs. As Steven(?) already pointed
> out: a very good testcase.

How do you maintain that? Do you always run through the stylesheets
and diff like hell, if something was fixed or improved?

I like more the version that Forrest generate the docs, and the Cocoon
standard dist the samples. It's more SoC, I think ;-)

Stephan.