I think an Apache 1.3 / 2.0 split is exactly the model we need. WebWork 2.0 is a different beast, just like Apache 2.0, and has a lot of features that will probably NEVER go back to the 1.x line. Both can be supported and have their own release schedules, and their own teams working on them. We definitely need to coordinate to make sure any bugs are guaranteed fixed in both spots, and any features added to 1.4+ should at least be evaluated for going into 2.0 (some may not make sense).
> -----Original Message----- > From: Drew McAuliffe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 3:13 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: RE: [OS-webwork] Intended roadmap for webwork project? > > > I've used both. I have no financial interest in the success > of either, except for the fact that if both projects are > caught in some sort of childish naming war between them, > certain clients of mine will lose confidence in my choice of > webwork of either flavor. This nonsense needs to stop and it > needs to stop now. I don't care who or what actually owns the > name "webwork" but however this shakes down, it's best if > it's not ugly. There's already too much of that kind of > nonsense in the real world and the open source world doesn't > need it. It will only serve to undermine the credibility of > any and all projects involved in the dispute. > > I thought that an apache 1.3/2.0 split was what we had but if > that's no longer the case then people need to work out what > projects they want to continue running and what their goals > are and things needs to be firmly established. The rest of us > don't care about the politics; there are 1.4 users needing > support and 2.0 users needing support and we don't need or > care about conflict at the top. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Rob Rudin > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 8:01 AM > To: Patrick Lightbody > Subject: Re: RE: [OS-webwork] Intended roadmap for webwork project? > > > I would be curious to hear from other 1.x users besides Hani > what their > > thoughts are on this issue. I invite anyone that uses 1.x to > please > > email me (or the list) with your thoughts so that I can get a > better > > idea as how to maintain these two very different code lines. > > I'm only vaguely familiar with the difference between Apache > 1.3.x and Apache 2.x, but could this situation be considered > similar? I believe Apache 1.3.x is in a maintenance-only > state, but there are probably millions of users dependent on > it. WW 1.x of course doesn't have that kind of user base, but > I think most of us WW 1.x users who are very happy with WW > 1.x would still like to see maintenance continued for at > least the next couple years and not worry about being forced > to migrate at any point. > > > Rob > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 > Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration > See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, > CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
