forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r430032 - in /forrest/trunk: plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.projectInfo/ plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.input.projectInfo/resources/stylesheets/ site-author/
Date Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:53:58 GMT
Tim Williams wrote:
> On 8/9/06, Thorsten Scherler <thorsten.scherler@wyona.com> wrote:
> 
>> El mié, 09-08-2006 a las 13:29 +0100, Ross Gardler escribió:
>> > cdupoirieux@apache.org wrote:
>> > > Author: cdupoirieux
>> > > Date: Wed Aug  9 03:52:50 2006
>> > > New Revision: 430032
>> > >
>> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=430032&view=rev
>> > > Log:
>> > > FOR-812 - Remove skniconf dependency
>> > > Add new properties to manage the project name, Url and the rss 
>> language.
>> > > Add a forrest.properties.xml to site-author to set the project 
>> name and URL...
>> >
>> > -1
>> >
>> > We need to make a release of the plugin hat is compatible with 0.8
>> > before doing this. The new properties system is not officially included
>> > in the 0.8 release of Forrest.
>> >
>> > Having said that, recently the new config system has been seeing more
>> > people using it and it seems t work well, within certain limitations.
>> > Perhaps we should consider including the forrest.properties.xml in the
>> > 0.8 release. If this were to happen I could lift my -1 on this commit.
>> >
>>
>> I am not sure. The forrest.properties.xml is in 0.8-dev, right? If not
>> we could not use it at all. Meaning a 0.8 release will automatically
>> support forrest.properties.xml.
>>
>> I do not see any issue why the new properties system is not included
>> "officially". ...and what is the difference anyway? Like said the
>> 0.8-dev supports it.
> 
> 
> Not sure.

I have no objections to forrest.properties.xml being in 0.8 now that it 
has recieved attention from other devs and therefore the implementation 
(or at least the user view of it) should remain fairly stable.

Howeer, someone needs to document it.

>> Further why -1 here and not on the dispatcher that as well is using the
>> new system.
> 
> 
> Probably because the dispatcher is still in the whiteboard and thus
> comes with no implied stability assurances.

Precisely.

Ross


Mime
View raw message