Pier Fumagalli wrote: > > You have a _proposal_ in your hands... Now we can vote! :-) > Ok, can you please summarize it here as text? Then we can discuss(!) - and not already vote.
> > I appreciate your work, BUT as even Stefano pointed out in the past, > > it is IMHO not good to call the new cvs cocoon-2.0 rsp. cocoon-2.1 > > because this will lead to a new repository for each version, and this > > is really not the best idea. > > Ehehmm... Why? You want to keep on branching? So that everytime > you have to > do a checkout, and update or anything you have to waste _minutes_ in > processing old directories containing only Attic and 5 meg long files > containing N versions of basically what are two different designs? > So what is your proposal then? We have 2.0 repository, a 2.1? And then a 2.1.1 and a 2.1.2 and a 2.2 and ...? Sorry, but I really don't get this. Will we create a new repo with every release? > > I think we agreed to rename the xml-cocoon2 cvs to simply cocoon and > > I don't see a point why we should make two repositories for 2.0 and 2.1. > > Why are the branches not sufficient? > > I would suggest you reading the Subversion introduction, it > explains all the > design flaws of RCS/CVS and what Subversion is trying to do in that > regard... Branches are not a constant-time operation... Emptying directory > trees puts a heck of a lot of strain on the servers (you have to > traverse it > anyhow).. It works, but it's a hack... > > Sow... Subversion on the other hand... :-) > Subversion? We are currently using cvs, so it doesn't help me to read something about subversion. And personally I don't care if it is a constant-time operation or not. If the solution is fast but not intuitiv it doesn't help me. > > So, unfortunately you already renamed them...I think it's best to revert > > your changes asap, then we as a community can decide about the new > > layout and then rename/move whatever. Do you think that this is a good > > approach? > > Have you tried working _exactly_ like yesterday? Did you notice any > difference? What did your CVS client say? Any problem? > I even haven't tried because you wrote: >>> > Now, call me "fascist" if you want, but to avoid people to commit back > to the old repository names, I've removed YOU ALL karma to the old > repositories... <<<< >From my point of view this means I cannot commit to the old repos, so why should I try it? Again, I really don't get why we can't discuss this proposal via email. If we would discuss a design we wouldn't implement it first and then vote on it, wouldn't we? So, sorry, perhaps I'm dumb but currently I'm totally confused. Carsten
