Just my 0,02 cents... I always considered "Cocoon" to mean more than pipelines, sitemap and alike.... Thus I don't think using Cocoon 3.0 being an apropriate name.
What about Cocoon Pipe (ok, not exaktly) or Cocoon Bones Rainer Reinhard Pötz schrieb: > Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Reinhard Pötz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> :-( that's bad. Any other suggestions? >> >> I still think that Cocoon 3.0 could be the name, if people are going >> to invest a significant effort in what's Corona today. For Sling we'd >> like to use the pipelines implementation, so some of us Sling folks >> are planning to contribute and help maintain that. I am not interested >> in the other parts at the moment. >> >> We already have 2.1 and 2.2 which are fairly different products, >> Cocoon 3.0 would be a lightweight embeddable thing that captures the >> essence of Cocoon in a way that's better suited to many of today's >> environments. Clearly an evolution, even though some parts will be >> missing, as those new environments provide them. > > I'm still not convinced that we should name it Cocoon 3.0 _now_ (quoting > myself from a few days ago): > > [...] Before we make the decision if Corona should become Cocoon 3.0 we > should learn more what other people think about it. (Currently it's only > 3 people who use it!) IMO the best way to find this out is by shipping > alpha releases under a codename. This gives us the freedom to decide > later without spoiling version numbers. [...] > > When Corona is able to attract a stable community proves itself useable > to a wider audience, we can start to ship it as Cocoon 3.0. > > Or is it only me who needs to be convinced of shipping Corona as Cocoon > 3.0? >
