|Reinhard Pötz||Aug 6, 2008 4:19 am|
|Felix Knecht||Aug 6, 2008 4:28 am|
|Andrew Savory||Aug 6, 2008 4:30 am|
|Daniel Fagerstrom||Aug 6, 2008 4:39 am|
|Thorsten Scherler||Aug 6, 2008 4:54 am|
|Carsten Ziegeler||Aug 6, 2008 4:56 am|
|Jasha Joachimsthal||Aug 6, 2008 6:15 am|
|Peter Hunsberger||Aug 6, 2008 7:30 am|
|Ralph Goers||Aug 6, 2008 7:43 am|
|Joerg Heinicke||Aug 6, 2008 8:09 am|
|Vadim Gritsenko||Aug 7, 2008 5:23 am|
|Bertrand Delacretaz||Aug 8, 2008 7:06 am|
|Alfred Nathaniel||Aug 8, 2008 4:23 pm|
|Reinhard Pötz||Aug 10, 2008 1:15 am|
|Reinhard Pötz||Aug 10, 2008 1:19 am|
|Vadim Gritsenko||Aug 10, 2008 12:08 pm|
|Reinhard Pötz||Aug 10, 2008 1:18 pm|
|Vadim Gritsenko||Aug 10, 2008 3:46 pm|
|Reinhard Pötz||Aug 16, 2008 7:19 am|
|Ralph Goers||Aug 16, 2008 7:32 am|
|Grzegorz Kossakowski||Aug 17, 2008 7:44 am|
|Reinhard Pötz||Aug 17, 2008 8:14 am|
|Sylvain Wallez||Aug 17, 2008 10:41 am|
|Grzegorz Kossakowski||Aug 18, 2008 2:23 am|
|Rainer Pruy||Aug 18, 2008 2:43 am|
|Grzegorz Kossakowski||Aug 18, 2008 3:04 am|
|Jeremy Quinn||Aug 18, 2008 3:42 am|
|Jeremy Quinn||Aug 18, 2008 4:07 am|
|Reinhard Pötz||Aug 18, 2008 4:21 am|
|Sylvain Wallez||Aug 18, 2008 5:12 am|
|Sylvain Wallez||Aug 18, 2008 5:13 am|
|Sylvain Wallez||Aug 18, 2008 5:47 am|
|Grzegorz Kossakowski||Aug 18, 2008 6:22 am|
|Reinhard Pötz||Aug 18, 2008 6:23 am|
|Grzegorz Kossakowski||Aug 18, 2008 6:28 am|
|Reinhard Pötz||Aug 18, 2008 6:29 am|
|Sylvain Wallez||Aug 18, 2008 8:04 am|
|Ralph Goers||Aug 18, 2008 8:21 am|
|Carsten Ziegeler||Aug 18, 2008 8:41 am|
|Jeremy Quinn||Aug 18, 2008 8:56 am|
|Sylvain Wallez||Aug 18, 2008 8:57 am|
|Grzegorz Kossakowski||Aug 19, 2008 4:53 am|
|Jeremy Quinn||Aug 19, 2008 8:03 am|
|Jeremy Quinn||Aug 19, 2008 8:10 am|
|Reinhard Pötz||Aug 20, 2008 5:44 am|
|Peter Hunsberger||Aug 20, 2008 7:32 am|
|Subject:||Re: Renaming Corona to Cocoon 3.0 and infrastructure|
|From:||Sylvain Wallez (sylv...@apache.org)|
|Date:||Aug 18, 2008 5:12:09 am|
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 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 Wallez - http://bluxte.net