From jefft@apache.org Fri Feb 21 01:39:34 2003 Return-Path: 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 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