Upayavira wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le 15 mars 06 à 16:04, Carsten Ziegeler a écrit :
...I personally would love to have the new configuration features of
2.2 in
2.1.x,
like the includes for xconf and properties. This alone is a big step
forward. Unfortunately this is tight to many other changes like the
Spring based container (which I also would like to have *today*).
So perhaps your suggestion, starting anew with 2.1.x as trunk is a good
way to move on...
How about backporting the Spring-based container and the new
configuration features to 2.1.x, and make that Cocoon 2.3, without
touching the current trunk?
The current 2.2 would then stay as is, people could work on it until it
stabilizes, and when it's time to release it we can always call it 3.0
or whatever to avoid confusion.
And that 2.3 release would be a big improvement already, especially
using Spring as its container.
Exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Both streams keep innovating.
I have no problem with a backport in general, but why exactly *now* when Daniel
writes a mail that he has solved all problems that required a lot of research
work and Daniel and I only need some more weeks of "implementation work"?
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
