-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, Jorg Heymans wrote:
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:13:25 +0100
From: Jorg Heymans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Versioning of blocks
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Hmm, yes, like I wrote in my latest answer to Daniels post, I'm not sure
if this is the right approach. I think, blocks will be totally
independent wrt to releases/versioning from the core in the future. And
Yes the release cycle of blocks will be totally independent of the core
release cycle. The actual versioning is independent as well.
The fact that my suggestion copies ./trunk to ./branch does not mean
that we tie the release or versioning of blocks in ./branch to that
core. It just means that we explicitly state that those blocks are only
guaranteed to be working with that particular core. The branch would
effectively be in maintenance mode, meaning you'ld only backport
*critical* bugfixes.
Hmm.. it seems we get a complicated thing here:
What about if I write a block that depends on
1. block A 1.0 which depends on cocoon-core-2.2
2. block B 1.1 which depends on cocoon-core-2.3
than?
Does this mean I have to make sure that my block A only depends on
blocks that all depend on the very same version of the same dependant
block?
- --
Giacomo Pati
Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.otego.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDwsU+LNdJvZjjVZARAmfVAJ98LUGTWGbsEOtH/odPSlT73MePBQCg7UZS
490uApOSutEFru8HRiS+4VM=
=8w3A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
