After our recent discussions, here is my reworked proposal:
Versioning
---
Cocoon 3 will follow the alpha/beta/rc release scheme (like Mozilla,
Maven, Apache Commons, etc.). The first release will be 3.0-alpha-1.
This will be a clear marker that is already visible
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Reinhard Pötz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After our recent discussions, here is my reworked proposal:
snipGood looking proposal/snip
Or do I need a vote before? If so I will start the voting process asap.
Any opinions?
I think you should run a vote, if only
Hi Jeremy,
Jeremy Quinn pisze:
From the PoV of users, it should also be clear :
If you want or have to use Ant, use 2.1
If you want or have to use Maven, use 2.2
If you just need the Pipeline API, use 3.0
I'm not sure if I get you here correctly so I'll ask:
Do you express your own wish or
Hi Grzegorz,
Many thanks for your response : )
On 19 Aug 2008, at 12:54, Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Jeremy Quinn pisze:
From the PoV of users, it should also be clear :
If you want or have to use Ant, use 2.1
If you want or have to use Maven, use 2.2
If you just need the
Just an added note
On 19 Aug 2008, at 16:04, Jeremy Quinn wrote:
It would be typical to assume (IMHO) that 3.0 is somehow better than
2.2 which is somehow better than 2.1, just because of the version
numbers.
This assumption is so easy to make, because for instance :
2.1 was better
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
Grzegorz Kossakowski pisze:
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
Just another 0.01€ in the same direction:
most developing users (esp. the ones developing cocoon itself) would qualify
as hackers.
Those are used to associate special meanings with groups of version numbers
as a number of other projects follow similar rules (e.g. Linux for long used
that
Dear Grzegorz
I was just in the process of flaming the bejesus out of you for what
you just said!
Without a whole bunch of very smart 'old-timers' like Sylvain, there
would be no Cocoon.
The Ant versus Maven controversy has already caused too much
disaffection in this project, IMHO.
Dear All
On 17 Aug 2008, at 18:41, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
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
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Versioning
---
For Cocoon 2 there have been proposals that all odd versions are
development/alpha versions and all even versions are stable releases.
I like this idea and propose that we follow this versioning schema
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
Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
Grzegorz Kossakowski pisze:
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
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Versioning
---
For Cocoon 2 there have been proposals that all odd versions are
development/alpha versions and all even versions are stable releases.
I like this idea and propose that we
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Versioning
---
For Cocoon 2 there have been proposals that all odd versions are
development/alpha versions and all even versions are stable releases.
I like this idea
Sylvain Wallez pisze:
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
Reinhard Pötz pisze:
As I wrote on my blog, I think that Cocoon has to change fundamentally
(focus on RESTful services, layered architecture and reuse in every Java
environment) in order to survive in the medium to long term. Staying
with Cocoon 2.x will mostly please already existing users but
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Versioning
---
For Cocoon 2 there have been proposals that all odd versions are
development/alpha versions and all even versions are stable
Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
Sylvain Wallez pisze:
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
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
By chronic disease, I was referring to Maven. And it's not specific
to Cocoon, but to many other projects. Maven has brought one new
brillant idea to the Java world, which is artifact repositories (note
though that Linux repositories have existed for a very long
Please, let's not get into the usual maven bashing threads. I'm tired of
reading all the love and hate about maven over and over again.
If someone thinks that the current system sucks *and* has time to try
out new things, great. If not, let's keep the working system.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
Hi Carsten
On 18 Aug 2008, at 16:41, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Please, let's not get into the usual maven bashing threads. I'm
tired of
reading all the love and hate about maven over and over again.
If someone thinks that the current system sucks *and* has time to try
out new things, great.
Ralph Goers wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
By chronic disease, I was referring to Maven. And it's not specific
to Cocoon, but to many other projects. Maven has brought one new
brillant idea to the Java world, which is artifact repositories (note
though that Linux repositories have existed for
Reinhard Pötz pisze:
Versioning
---
For Cocoon 2 there have been proposals that all odd versions are
development/alpha versions and all even versions are stable releases.
I like this idea and propose that we follow this versioning schema in
Cocoon 3: All 3.0.x
Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
Reinhard Pötz pisze:
snip/
SVN
---
I'm not sure about the new location in SVN. One option I can think of is
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/cocoon3-trunk, the other is
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/branches/cocoon-3
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Versioning
---
For Cocoon 2 there have been proposals that all odd versions are
development/alpha versions and all even versions are stable releases.
I like this idea and propose that we follow this versioning schema in
Cocoon 3: All 3.0.x
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
Following the result of our recent discussion about the future of
Corona, I propose Corona to become Cocoon 3.
This means that any reference on Corona in source files, package
names, artifact ids, group ids or anywhere else will be dropped and
the
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
.
Versioning
---
For Cocoon 2 there have been proposals that all odd versions are
development/alpha versions and all even versions are stable releases.
I like this idea and propose that we follow this versioning schema in
Cocoon 3: All 3.0.x
28 matches
Mail list logo
