On 25/3/03 9:23 am, "Stefano Mazzocchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>> On 24/3/03 3:09 pm, "Stefano Mazzocchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Anyway, we can't force people to do anything: if they won't migrate from
>>> 2.0, we have failed and we should start reconsidering our architectural
>>> strategies because our user base is not following us.
>>
>>
>> Hmm.. I don't think you're right on this, Stefano... Look at HTTPd, still a
>> lot of people are using 1.3, when 2.0 is delivering (for example) _A_LOT_
>> more performance than the old tree...
>>
>> Still, a huge part of the user base didn't "switch" just yet...
>
> key words: 'just yet'.
Gotcha...
> I didn't say "how long". AFAIK, many people are still using Cocoon 1.8.2
> in production and it's been running for two years without failing once.
>
> Yet, everybody considers Cocoon 1.x dead and no development is taking
> place anymore and nobody objects it.
>
> Cocoon 2.0.x will remain there potentially for years and will be used
> for many more in production environments.
Like us at VNU, where we still are running a couple of httpd 1.2.6 :-)
> Still, if development doesn't move on and transition isn't smooth, we
> are actually forking the project.
>
> If development on HTTPD continues on both fronts, they failed since the
> community shows that 2.0 is nothing better than what they already had.
>
> i don't think this is the case, I think it's just a matter of time.
>
> As it will be for Cocoon 2.1.
I'd say: as it is _already_ for Cocoon 2.0/2.1... Since we split the repos
(and if I'm not wrong), we had 32 commits to the 2.0 repo, more than 370 to
the 2.1 one... So... We're all happy campers! :-)
Pier
