Hmm Comparing ourselves with JSP was not exactly my point - I am just not sure of the validity of the graph if you are mixing and (not) matching two different types of data - at least add a footnote and explain the change from a single site to a mirrored one.. or do not show old data... or something.
Was that really FUD?? Maybe I am now eligible for a career with you-know-who ;-) >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003/11/14 04:10:36 PM >>> Derek Hohls wrote: > Given this change on mirrors, the person maintaing: > http://www.apache.org/~vgritsenko/stats/projects/cocoon.html > needs either to delete the graph on downloads > (as it is misleading by nature of omitting relevant data), > or upgrade the mechanism whereby it is created so as to > properly reflect all mirror site data - I don't believe that > the graph as it stands is "somewhat indicative" of activity. > > There is enough FUD out there already ;-) So please don't start adding onto it. ;-) I think the figures show that we are good ASF citizens, and that we use the mirrors as suggested. Page views are increasing, which is good. As far as popularity contests is concerned, we might never get to the level of JSP/Struts, but quite frankly, Cocoon and JSP/Struts are simply in a different ballpark. </Steven> -- Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source Java & XML An Orixo Member Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/ stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
