On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 08:30, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > Peter Donald wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:11, Paul Hammant wrote: > > > >>I'd prefer this to be done to HEAD entirely. Why? Well we have > >>pre-alpha of 4.1 available for download and no promises have been made > >>for alpha or beta of 4.1. If assembly.xml is present I'd imagine that > >>there is no need for the experimental code to be executed. As such, and > >>given all live usages of Phoenix will already have assembly.xml files in > >>the sar file, I'd suspect that there is not problem for head development.. > > > > > > It is not so much because it is experimental but because I don't want to break > > anything I can't fix and sans CVS access thats could happen. The changes are > > wide-ranging and require massive updates to a whole sleugh of files - mainly > > as auto-assembly was written on top of an ContainerKit-enabled Phoenix. So > > while there is such large changes I would prefer it to happen in a branch. We > > can suck it back into head in a few weeks if all goes well. > > > We are discussing about a new single container with profiles, wouldn't > be better to put all further development on hold, switch to maintainance > mode and focus on that?
No, not for some time at least. People have a need for these features now, hence are developing them now. I think those changes should be allowed to go in. The only alternative for them would be to fork phoenix elsewhere, which we don't want. When we get to the stage where it starts looking like a single profile-based container is viable, it might actually become a stable product within like 3 months, and it has been assured there's a good migration path from phoenix, then I will definitely agree on a phoenix feature freeze. cheers, - Leo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
