Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
Sylvain Wallez pisze:
I would say the contrary. Let's not forget that most of our users
aren't hard-core developers (they love Cocoon because they can do
complex stuff without programming) and they aren't used to this
odd/even versioning scheme that comes from the Linux kernel.
Rather than that, it seems to me that most of the "normal" (i.e. non
hard-core hacker) people consider a version without any "beta",
"milestone" or other suffix as an official stable release. A
well-known example is Firefox that goes through a series of
milestones, beta and RC version before releasing a stable version
with the same number. Eclipse does the same.
Yes, that makes sense. I also wonder how beta, RC, etc. releases can
be more confusing that odd/even versioning.
Also, I haven't voted for the renaming Corona to Cocoon 3.0 as I was
on vacation, but I really think this is too early. Cocoon 2.2 is just
out and we announce a 3.0. This will most probably lead people to
consider 2.2 as a transition to 3.0 and just not use it, and thus
just look elsewhere.
Provided that one documents our thoughts on 2.2 and 3.0 clearly I
don't think there will be that much of confusion.
Actually, I think it's a high time for us to define official document
that explains our rules for giving artifacts version numbers. WDYT?
Stated clearly, I have fears that just as Maven almost killed the
developer community for 2.2, announcing a 3.0 now will kill the user
community.
Sylvain, pardon my ignorance but what kind of real problems with Maven
we have _now_ in Cocoon's trunk? I can understand that people were fed
up with Maven at the beginning of the transition because it was almost
impossible to build Cocoon. But that was more than one year ago.
I can't say what problems there are _now_ since I don't build Cocoon
anymore. Hopefully it works now, and I was referring to the past: when
the move to Maven was started, the 2.2 build was mostly broken for
months, which drained an incredible amount of energy away from the
project, either because people got discouraged by this broken build
(e.g. me), or because they invested their volunteer time in
understanding Maven (e.g. Jorg Heymans) rather than developing Cocoon.
I'm glad it seems to work now, but the amount of energy needed to setup
and maintain this build system (remember, it's _just_ a build system)
has been astronomical.
When it comes to user community, I would say that it grows quite
nicely. There are people contributing[1][2] some tutorials, sharing
their experience and seem to have a real fun with 2.2.
It's very nice to see people using 2.2, but I have the impression that
most of the 2.2-related questions are related to maven-isms, artifacts,
poms, etc. Without wanting to sound harsh, I'm wondering whether this
community has learned to live over time with some sort of chronic
disease, and is so used to it now that it doesn't even realize that life
could be easier without it.
Note that I said "could" and not "would" since ultimately the
people-that-do decide what they prefer. And yes I'm a retired old-timer
here, but I still care for this community where I learned so much.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez - http://bluxte.net
