hepabolu wrote: > Berin Loritsch wrote: > >> Upayavira wrote: >> >>> So, 2.2 = important, and 3.0 = important. Both. >>> >>> We need to avoid discussions, implications, emotions, etc that suggest >>> otherwise. >>> >>> >> >> Right. If any of that has gone on, I'm sure its unintentional. If >> memory serves me correctly, Cocoon 2 was written as a branch, and >> Maintenance was happening on Cocoon 1 for a while. >> >> There did come a time when work stopped on Cocoon 1, but that was >> after Cocoon 2 was released. >> >> Basically, new/exciting stuff should go in Cocoon 3, and touch ups to >> Cocoon 2 until Cocoon 3 is ready for prime time. > > > Fine, but times might be much more hectic now with less people having > less time to contribute to either version. There is still the 2.1 branch > to maintain as well. > So I think that the time of maintaining 2 versions (actually 3) should > be as short as possible and that apart from the current Maven and blocks > nothing new should be added to 2.2, however exciting that may be.
Actually, I tend to disagree. As has been pointed out, this is open source, so an exciting new 3.0 project could easily bring fresh blood, thus not depleting 2.x at all. > More important I think is not only defining the "vision of Cocoon 3.0" > as precisely as possible (so all jumping up and down now, know exactly > where to jump in), and coming up with a roadmap, but also to try and > define/write conversion tools (however simple) almost from the beginning > that can ease the transition from 2.1/2.2 to 3.0. If the tedious 60% can > be done automatically, it shows the current user base they are not > abandoned. Yup. > AND PLEASE TAKE THE DOCUMENTATION INTO ACCOUNT! However rudimentary, > write something, give an example and make sure the docs stay up-to-date. And with Daisy in place, this should be much easier. Regards, Upayavira
