On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Hi folks. I'm back working on the list and as you can see I'm way behind the head of the mails.
> As we start taking about new features and new things that might change > the inner workings of Cocoon, we should *not* call this effort Cocoon3, > and we should stop calling Cocoon, Cocoon2. This leads a sense of > "forking" that is dangerous to the user community. Totally aggree. Keep the branding ;) > > As we enter the time where Cocoon 2.0 reaches stability and can enter > production, we *must* understand that users (and we all, for that > matter) are investing lots of resources into this, since learning Cocoon > is not exactly a piece of cake. > > When Cocoon 2.0 is released, Cocoon 1.x becomes old stuff and will have > a 6 months transition where we'll suggest users to upgrade and then > we'll consider 1.x obsolete. Yes, as all of you had seen Cocoon 1.x as become an orphan so far because all developpers knowing Cocoon 1.x were gone (and one has been returned ;). > > We'll do 2.0.x releases that incorporate fully-back-compatible bugfixes > and 2.x releases when we'll be forced to do back-incompatible changes > (that we'll document and state clearly, also, if possible, creating > tools that migrate automatically from earlier versions). +1 > > The project has grown up. > > People are going to use it in production environments and nothing is > going to stop us technically to get to a leading position in the XML > publishing world, we are the only one that can ruin that and one way to > ruin this is to give a sense of "moving target" to users or people that > are deciding whether or not to use Cocoon. > > The same thing must be said for Avalon and for all other technologies > that want to be considered "adult" in the software world. > > So, I kindly suggest you people to stop using the terms Cocoon2, C2 or > even worse Cocoon3 or C3 after Cocoon 2.0 is released. > > Just another thing: the URI > > http://xml.apache.org/cocoon2/ > > is *BAD*, we are already creating tons of broken links when we'll have > to remove that and turn back to the *only* cocoon URI which is This has been introduced due to the split of the CVS. It was not practicable to have both version produce theire site docs in a acceptable way. > http://xml.apache.org/cocoon/ > > but I understand this was done with good intentions and we can fix that > with little hassle. Hopefully. > > But, please, from now on, let's be more careful on the future. > > So, discussing RT is great and gives the sense that this community is > fun and productive. > > Now, it's time to give the impression we are also responsible and > trustful and this starts by behaving as one when controlling the > evolution of the project. > > Let's keep up the great work. I'd like to congratulate all developers for their awesome work in the last couple of weeks (yes I've walked through the cvs list ;) Giacomo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
