Reinhard Poetz wrote: > 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"?
Consider it nothing more than a build up of frustration. I will only fully believe it when you say "now" rather than "some more weeks". I offer you both/all my greatest encouragement in what you are doing - I really do hope it is a few weeks - I find it very exciting. But at the same time, I want to see something move in the rest of Cocoon too. Regards, Upayavira
