First, Stefano, relax - I didn't want to attack you directly. Don't assume that all my comments were hinting at something you did!
So... Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > I'm doing refactoring because I want to release, not the opposite. > Dito and see comment above. > Removing dependencies will improve our ability to REaO (Release Early > and Often) Yupp. > > I would like to relax the policy a little bit to: > > Never release a stable version that depends on non-released stuff (where > > released version has to be at least stable in API). > > Ok, that's good enough. > > Also, I would add that we should not put code in HEAD that depends on a > unreleased software that *NEVER* made a 1.0 release. This will keep the > contracts shaped up. > Good point. > > Moving the SourceFactory to Avalon made a mess. This is what I'm mostly > concerned at the moment. What is the status of this? > I personally don't see that it made a mess. Ok, but let's not argue about that. The status is that the move is finished, the avalon version is stable and can be released as 1.0 immediately - all parts in the core of Cocoon are using the avalon version, and the old cocoon version is deprecated but of course still supported. > > So, actually this is another point, sometimes even if we as a community > > agree on something - someone does not know/care about this decission > > and is doing what he things is best. > > I asked a vote for this and the lazy consensus was that libraries that > depend on *ONE* block will go into the block/lib directory, the > libraries shared by blocks will remain in /lib/optional. > a) see first two sentences, b) if so, I overlooked your vote then, but > Did I overlook something? > we had a vote with a different result months ago. But opinions may change over time. > Do others believe that I acted on my personal behalf against community > decisions? What do you want to achieve with this question? Carsten
