+1 for the branch
and although I really like the name "tani" I think we should stick to what we decided. no fancy names.
+1 for keeping the "new-kernel" (or naming it "block-kernel")
Hmmm, what about butterfly then?
The problem with calling it "new-kernel" is that the new kernel is just part of what that branch will host and this will create naming issues.
This is, in fact, a cocoon internal fork and, as for the rules of revolutionaries, every committer is allowed to ask for it with the name that he/she pleases.
As for giving up the codename: unlike tomcat's catalina or woody, we will not use "tani" in the package name or in any part of the contract, since we already expect "tani" to be just a codename and to be thrown down the drain once we are done with it and the community decides what to do.
I don't want to appear pushy, but this is not a vote.
The reason why the rules for revolutionaries were created was to avoid external forks, not to make the community limit the ability for internal forks to happen.
Just like Ugo, I feel the need for a clean slate and a place where I can work without breaking everybody else's code. I personally don't care if the code will be used or not, what I care is to create a prototype to show to this community and to my group at MIT, what real blocks can give you and how they can make your life better (and, for my group at MIT, show why Cocoon is not just an XSLT servlet anymore, shrug)
-- Stefano.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
