On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 03:37:11PM +0100, Reinhard P?tz wrote: > Sylvain Wallez wrote: > >Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > >> > >So let's finally vote on this. > > > >- do you want to add an importance="high|low|medium" attribute on > ><action> in changes.xml? > > I think high|low|medium should me more meaningful or in other words > self-explaining. What about "newFeature", "incompatibleChange", > "minorChange"?
This would change "importance" to something like "changeType", right? +1 with self-explaining names (even if I am not good at choosing them :) > >- do you want each block to have it's own status.xml file? > > As long as we dont have RCB (real Cocoon blocks) I'm in favour of Vadims > proposal. +1 to block attribute --Tim Larson
