Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> >> And if we are already talking about releases, what do we have to do
> >> for 2.1? It seems that many things are nearly finished, so we can
> >> start to think of a beta phase. I would propose the 15th of July for
> >> the release date of 2.1 beta 1.
>
> -1
>
> We are not even close to what I think 2.1 should be about. I would be in
> favor of an 'alpha' release, meaning that we don't make any effort
> whatsoever for API back compatibility between 2.1 releases until we go
> final (as the WARNING states clearly today), but a beta means that we
> are happy with the interfaces we have and I'm not.
Actually I proposed the date above to push things ;) I currently fear that
we are making the same mistake we made with 2.0 where every month we said,
"Hey, let's move the release just one month because we need this cool thing
in the release".
>
> > - switch to Avalon Source everywhere (is it already done ?)
>
> This is a big one. I would like more info to evaluate this.
What do you need? The switch has already taken place in CVS.
>
> > - switch to LogEnabled
>
> makes sense.
>
> > - I have to write the extended sitemap variable substitution, i.e.
> > {request:foo}. I'm late on this since my Cocoon time is currently
> > devoted to reviewing a book written by people named... Carsten and
> > Matthew ;-)
>
> Cool.
>
> > - more tests and examples on the flowmap. Seems to me that this
> > strategic stuff has been a set a bit aside due to lack of time.
> >
> > Entering beta state would then allow more people to test this baby !
>
> But would slow us down in development and since we need to develop
> rather than to do bugfixes, I don't like this.
>
> My issues are:
>
> 1) the flowmap/sitemap connection semantics are bad. I don't like them.
> We need to do something more aggressive on this realm. NOTE: we'll have
> to change the version of the sitemap namespace in 2.1, but still be back
> compatible with 2.0.x
We could move this to 2.2
>
> 2) finish the design of blocks
>
> Thursday I spent a day with Giacomo talking about the above two points
> (I did consulting in Zurich this week). I'll write extensive RT tomorrow
> or the next day about what we achieved.
>
> I'm happy to state that we were finally able to provide a solution for
> all the problems with had on the table, expecially about sitemap/flowmap
> integration and about block polymorphism.
We could move this to 2.2 as well.
>
> I don't want to enter beta state until we have finished discussing such
> important design issues.
>
Hmm, I agree. But again, I think we are making the same mistake as we did
with the 2.0 release.
What about moving everything which has not been discussed in detail to
the 2.2 release?
> Hope you understand my points.
>
Of course, we can't make a beta if we don't have a stable API/contracts.
Carsten
Carsten Ziegeler Chief Architect Open Source Group, S&N AG
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cocoon Consulting, Training and Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.s-und-n.de
http://ziegeler.bei.t-online.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
