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?
--
Reinhard Pötz Managing Director, {Indoqa} GmbH
http://www.indoqa.com/en/people/reinhard.poetz/
Member of the Apache Software Foundation
Apache Cocoon Committer, PMC member [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
