Le Dimanche, 23 mars 2003, à 14:20 Europe/Zurich, David Crossley a
écrit :
If the mantra "only use released version of a product" was
applied by Forrest then we would not be doing very well.
We now need, and probably always will need, a recent Cocoon head.
Perhaps we can relax this rule for F
Diana Shannon wrote:
> I'm not saying it isn't working. I'm saying the **only** reason it works
> now is because we are using a cvs-based version of an outside project,
> not a released version. Stefano recently stated in:
>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=104619931816392&w=
Diana Shannon wrote:
All right. Since there is circular dependency between cocoon and
forrest, I would suggest we release cocoon 2.1 first, allow forrest to
release a new version based on 2.1 and at that point forrestize our
docs.
how does that sound?
But this circular dependency will always b
On Sunday, March 23, 2003, at 02:59 AM, David Crossley wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Diana Shannon wrote:
For example, current forrest build capability with cocoon's cvs
is only possible with Forrest CVS, not the last Forrest release.
This violates your "building on sand" philosophy.
I am no
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Diana Shannon wrote:
> > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> >> Diana Shannon wrote:
> >>
> >>> Perhaps it's just the nature of open source software, that a
> >>> tremendous amount of energy is unleashed right before a release date.
Actually i do not think that there is a "relea
Diana Shannon wrote:
On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 11:13 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Perhaps it's just the nature of open source software, that a
tremendous amount of energy is unleashed right before a release date.
Perhaps there's no other way. Still, it feels, to be honest, like
poor pla
On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 11:13 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Perhaps it's just the nature of open source software, that a
tremendous amount of energy is unleashed right before a release date.
Perhaps there's no other way. Still, it feels, to be honest, like poor
planning. If we follow t
Diana Shannon wrote:
On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 04:53 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Inside, we are all equal so once you get it can either be a democracy
(ask first, wait for momentum to build, potentially forever) or a
do-ocracy (do first, rollback if they jump on you or keep going if you
> You can't cook without making a mess in the chitchen. But as long as you
> are the one cleaning up, nobody can complain, expecially if the food
> comes up great :)
exactly!
> [and those of you who experienced my cooking know what I'm talking about :)]
lol :))
--
Torsten
> I'm just concerned that some people may remain "bruised" from the recent
> cvs problems that came about from upgrading the build.
I think as long as we decide/vote to go a specific trail there is no
reason to be "bruised" whether it is unpleasant for a while or not.
At least for HEAD :)
> If
Responding to Steven and Stefano here:
On Friday, March 21, 2003, at 05:23 PM, Steven Noels wrote:
there's a lot of stuff out there and we should be able to work on this
as a team. Even if the transition is carefully documented (as you
already did at great length), I assume there might be issu
Steven Noels wrote:
I guess so. We, the doco people, also have the right to do disruptive
things! ;-)
There is no such things as 'doco people', Steven. I got already busted
once for that ;-)
Stefano.
Diana Shannon wrote:
Perhaps the best thing is to simply
throw it in the cvs and let everyone help finish the work -- as is
happening right now.
Apache is a meritocracy but that's from the outside.
Inside, we are all equal so once you get it can either be a democracy
(ask first, wait for momen
On 21/03/2003 21:42 Diana Shannon wrote:
On Friday, March 21, 2003, at 08:15 AM, Steven Noels wrote:
There's movement on the -docs list and perhaps also a Forrest quantum
leap blossoming, so we'd better do this before or after this assumably
disruptive step.
I also wanted to state strongly th
On Friday, March 21, 2003, at 08:15 AM, Steven Noels wrote:
There's movement on the -docs list and perhaps also a Forrest quantum
leap blossoming, so we'd better do this before or after this assumably
disruptive step.
I also wanted to state strongly that I don't believe Forrest transition
need
15 matches
Mail list logo
