On Sunday, March 23, 2003, at 02:59 AM, David Crossley wrote:
<snip />
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:Diana Shannon wrote:
For example, current forrest build capability with cocoon's cvs is only possible with Forrest CVS, not the last Forrest release. This violates your "building on sand" philosophy.
I am not sure what you mean here Diana, it is working now.
I'm not saying it isn't working. I'm saying the **only** reason it works now is because we are using a cvs-based version of an outside project, not a released version. Stefano recently stated in:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=104619931816392&w=2
"never commit code that depends on non-released stuff"
and I'm just pointing out that we are doing that here.
<snip />
Stephan and others have done one excellent step: getting Forrest to process the Cocoon docs as they are now (DTD v1.0). Going to the next stage is what Diana is rightly concerned about.
All right. Since there is circular dependency between cocoon and
forrest, I would suggest we release cocoon 2.1 first, allow forrest to
release a new version based on 2.1 and at that point forrestize our docs.
how does that sound?
But this circular dependency will always be there, so why not just get on with it. Anyway, Forrest uses a recent stable version of cocoon-2.1-dev, i.e. just off the bleeding-edge.
I agree we should get on with it too, as long as we don't break existing doc build capability. I think we should rely on the cvs version only for this transition stage. In the future, I don't want the docs build dependent on a cvs which from time to time will break. While the responsiveness of Forrest committers is incredible, I think Stefano's principle stated above is a best practice we should follow, especially for something like doc building (given the fact users just want docs, not necessarily the latest-greatest code which produces such docs).
Diana
