Thorsten Scherler wrote:
On Sat, 2008-03-15 at 15:21 -0500, Richard Frovarp wrote:
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
Hi all,
...
I meaning starting first with a requirements/architecture document and
ten develop the code around it (using as much good as we have right
now).
...
i wonder: should we really be starting a 3.0 at this point? it seems
weird to spread our (already small) developer base even thinner...
i think we owe it to our users to invest some more time into the 2.0
branch (with easy upgradeability - let's not fool ourselves: a
transition from cocoon 2.1 to 2.2 will *not* be seamless except for the
most trivial of deployments).
I agree that is why I wrote above to start with documentation first.
This will help us in many ways.
- First we will all know what we have to do and everybody may pick a
task and implement it.
- Second we will all know and have it documented how the architecture of
3.0 will look like.
- Third we have a draft to ask on cocoon whether 2.2 will support it and
which possible pitfalls are.
I agree. I think with our small developer base we should hold off on
starting 3.0. A roadmap for 3.0 and 2.0 should be generated.
I do not want that we start coding at all on 3.0 till we have above
mentioned documents. 2.0 is our stable version - replacing 1.2 in this
sense - and we need to keep on developing on it.
Release
early and release often. I think we're probably close to a 2.0.2
release, given several performance updates that happened just after
2.0.1, plus some of the bug fixes.
I totally agree that this release have preference over 3.0, however we
need to start thinking about the future.
If we manage to develop the documentation for 3.0 before writing one
line of code then we can gain a never known momentum.
salu2
+1 That all makes sense to me and sounds good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
