Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
the update try experience made me think why are we not splitting cocoon
apart from forrest.
I mean you would need them both to make forrest running. That would
overcome the whole procedure. We can set certain revision numbers of
cocoon-2.2 till it is not released. Kind of we having in lenya.
Any thoughts?
I don't like it.
Seconded
I can visualise us having to support a stack of Cocoon user
questions and we don't have enough people here to help.
Also we use cocoon trunk so that makes it even harder
for our users.
I would rather than we Forrest committers did a little bit
of extra work, to make it easier for our developers/users.
Or simply rearrange and separate the Cocoon bits from the Forrest bits
to make update easier.
I've been experimenting with turning Forrest into a block. There are
some problem with this related to some of the stuff we do in
forrest.xconf, however, I have a proposal for how this can be resolved
(as part of the redefinition of the config files).
When I have time, probably a week or so away, I will write this up.
We will then be able to include the relevant parts of Cocoon from SVN
(use SVN external) and compile it when we run build.sh
More on this soon(ish).
Ross
