Upayavira wrote: > Ralph Goers wrote: > >> Please Daniel, don't take this personally as it isn't really directed at >> you. Part of it is directed at myself as I haven't had any significant >> amount of time to contribute to this work. I guess I'm just wondering if >> I'm the only one who is feeling this way? If so, I'll stop my whining. > > I'd like to look at why you don't have time to contribute. I believe it > is because this 'Cocoon' that is under development is still in early > stages and still quite 'abstract' in the problems it is trying to solve. > That's not a bad thing necessarily, but the consequence is that it feels > as if there's no space for people to innovate on smaller or more > immediate issues because we're all waiting for this 'big thing'. > > If the OSGi blocks stuff is so orthogonal to Cocoon, why don't we: > * break it off into a separate development path, no longer consider it > 'trunk', > * move 2.1.X into trunk > * Start innovating on 2.1.x again > * Wrap the OSGi blocks system around this new trunk as and when it is > a bit better developed. > > Personally, the long waiting for this blocks system is having very > unfortunate effects on our community. We need to change that. Take the > development of blocks off the front stage, and let it happen quietly > somewhere until there's something clear for us to see and play with, > rather than preventing people from being able to innovate because they > can't understand the status of trunk and don't have time/resources to > invest in working it out and keeping up. > > That means that all that are left are those of us that have 'personal > spare time'. The rest of us, who do all of our Cocoon work as a part of > our livelihoods, can't find time to contribute to Cocoon because we > can't justify it - it is just too hard to work out where to contribute. > > And 'just waiting' is dangerous, as each moment some of our valuable > resource wanders away. > I personally would love to have the new configuration features of 2.2 in 2.1.x, like the includes for xconf and properties. This alone is a big step forward. Unfortunately this is tight to many other changes like the Spring based container (which I also would like to have *today*).
So perhaps your suggestion, starting anew with 2.1.x as trunk is a good way to move on. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
