Don't worry. It takes a lot to shut me up. :) I think we in general agreement.
Ralph -----Original Message----- From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 10:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Continue Development of 2.1.x > > However, I am not a Cocoon committer, so it really isn't up > to me to say how the respository is organized. But you belong to the Cocoon community and we really value everyone's opinion. It doesn't mean that a committer is always right. So, please keep on posting your comments and suggestions. Really appreciated. > But as a user > of Cocoon I care greatly about how I am going to be able to > maintain it after my system goes live. I'd prefer not to > have to freeze it at a particular point release and perform > hand patches after that. > Yes, I totally understand that and as I said, in general I agree but the changes I mentioned should really be harmless. Remember, that most of us committers are users, too. E.g. we (s&n, my employer :) ) are using Cocoon in many projects ranging from small to very big installations and we don't want to change our applications just because we are upgrading from let's say 2.1.4 to 2.1.5. So, in the end, I think, yes, all 2.1.x versions should in general be compatible but there should be (as always) exceptions to this rule. Carsten
