Re: 2.2 vs 3.0, or 2.2 then 3.0?

[hepabolu]

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.

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.

AND PLEASE TAKE THE DOCUMENTATION INTO ACCOUNT! However rudimentary, 
write something, give an example and make sure the docs stay up-to-date.

Just my 0.02€

Bye, Helma