forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tim Williams" <william...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] use Cocoon-2.1
Date Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:32:30 GMT
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 5:59 AM, David Crossley <crossley@apache.org> wrote:
> Tim Williams wrote:
>> David Crossley wrote:
>> > We intend to "update" the version of Cocoon used by Forrest
>> > to be Cocoon-2.1 branch.
>> >
>> > Please vote.
>>
>> I reckon I've missed discussion on why 2.1.x vs the released 2.2?
>> It's not intuitive why we would "upgrade" to an outdated version.  I
>> saw FOR-1016 but I didn't see what the show-stopper was.  A search
>> turned up this[1] thread with Thorsten concerned about "pass-through"
>> - but I'm not sure what that means.
>
> That is the ability that lets our sitemaps work.
> If a match is not found then it passes through to the
> next sitemap. That ability was in our old Cocoon-2.2 trunk,
> and we were not sure it was backported to Cocoon-2.1 branch.
> It was and it works for us.
>
> As for the background, please see the recent "Proposal" thread.
> It directs you to
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-1017
> and to the old discussion:
> http://marc.info/?t=116969435600001

Thanks David, I've read this and still don't see why *not* 2.2.  From
all that discussion the only problem I see is the CLI - Thorsten is
currently shopping for a Member to champion his droids lab ATM that
could likely be suitable for that.  I assume the other advantages to
upgrading (i.e. XMLFileModule updates, etc.) are applicable to both
versions anyway.

I'm trusting that it makes sense, but I suggest again that because 2.2
is the more obvious upgrade path, we'd do well to state explicitly
what's keeping us from it and essentially "reverting" to 2.1.  As I
understand it, we've been using a variant of 2.2 for over 3 years now
and the next version of Forrest would potentially have "upgrade to
2.1" listed in the changes.  I personally think that's just odd enough
to deserve something more explicit in the voting process than long
references to discussions that weren't exactly fully conclusive.
--tim

Mime
View raw message