From jefft@apache.org  Fri Feb 21 01:39:34 2003
Return-Path: <jefft@apache.org>
Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 72752 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2003 01:39:34 -0000
Received: from grunt24.ihug.com.au (203.109.249.144)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Feb 2003 01:39:34 -0000
Received: from p164-apx1.syd.ihug.com.au (expresso.localdomain) [203.173.140.164] 
	by grunt24.ihug.com.au with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 18m2A7-0004Sv-00; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:39:40 +1100
Received: from jeff by expresso.localdomain with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 18m2At-00026M-00; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:40:27 +1100
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:40:27 +1100
From: Jeff Turner <jefft@apache.org>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: Proposal for Lenya
Message-ID: <20030221014027.GA7537@expresso.localdomain>
Mail-Followup-To: general@incubator.apache.org, cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3E539C3C.5000106@wyona.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 04:01:16PM +0100, Michael Wechner wrote:
> Dear Incubator List
> 
> Here's our proposal for _Lenya_ (plz see below), a Content Management 
> System based on Cocoon.

FWIW, here's my +1 for Incubatorship.  I see Lenya as tackling all the
problems that Forrest would eventually encounter, if we ignored the
blatant scope creep.  It would be very cool if Lenya and Forrest were
eventually two different 'profiles' of a common technology set.

I see what Steven means with:

>> My main concern is the fact that Lenya does not come only with a
>> community, but also with a code base. That code base is in use already
>> at a selected number of commercial installations (which is good, of
>> course). I hope to be proven wrong, yet I fear the existing codebase
>> is intimately linked with these installations - hence the number of
>> publications in CVS.

But I don't understand why the usual Apache process wouldn't work.
Preserve the core architecture whenever possible, but if someone wants a
revolution, fine: there's nothing wrong with supporting both a legacy 1.x
and redesigned 2.x release.


--Jeff


...
> Thanks
> 
> Michael