You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net> on 2008/09/22 21:09:21 UTC
New Spring Maintenance policy
Hi folks,
Perhaps an old news for some, but I would like to know how you guys
think this affects cocoon:
http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=50727
Are we going to take some actions on that?
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Rainer Pruy <Ra...@Acrys.COM>.
I'd doubt a petition by itself would make them change the policy.
Probably they no longer can afford time, money or other resource to support "community" version of spring.
If they are trying to make a business out of it it is quite obvious that they won't pop up asking for
"someone to take over".
Nevertheless, It might help indicating to them that their behaviour might endanger any business perspective implied
so that they are more willing to keep a sufficient level of support.
I personally do think there is no need for immediate action.
But in the worst case we will be in a similar situation
as when the current team around spring had declared their retirement from spring project: A new team needs to take over.
So let's have a close watch at further development of the issue....
Rainer
Reinhard Pötz schrieb:
> Rainer Pruy wrote:
>> A clear statement along "only the most current release will receive
>> maintenance efforts" would have been much easier and clearer (and
>> would get broader acceptance by the community). That the whole thing
>> was not put that way contributes to the impression that users should
>> be convinced into a support contract.
>
> Thanks Rainer, that's more or less the same that I wanted to say. Maybe
> SpringSource can be convinced to change their policy into this direction.
>
> WDOT, would a petition help for that purpose?
>
--
Rainer Pruy
Geschäftsführer
Acrys Consult GmbH & Co. KG
Untermainkai 29-30, D-60329 Frankfurt
Tel: +49-69-244506-0 - Fax: +49-69-244506-50
Web: http://www.acrys.com - Email: office@acrys.com
Handelsregister: Frankfurt am Main, HRA 31151
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org>.
Rainer Pruy wrote:
> A clear statement along "only the most current release will receive
> maintenance efforts" would have been much easier and clearer (and
> would get broader acceptance by the community). That the whole thing
> was not put that way contributes to the impression that users should
> be convinced into a support contract.
Thanks Rainer, that's more or less the same that I wanted to say. Maybe
SpringSource can be convinced to change their policy into this direction.
WDOT, would a petition help for that purpose?
--
Reinhard Pötz Managing Director, {Indoqa} GmbH
http://www.indoqa.com/en/people/reinhard.poetz/
Member of the Apache Software Foundation
Apache Cocoon Committer, PMC member reinhard@apache.org
________________________________________________________________________
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Rainer Pruy <Ra...@Acrys.COM>.
Hi,
yes, all the wording is quite confusing.
The "statement" cited by Peter is trying to convince readers into believing "it will affect only old releases",
but there nowhere is a guarantee put up that there will be a new release within the 3month period.
And the policy puts up that 3 month period per release without referring to later releases.
A clear statement along "only the most current release will receive maintenance efforts"
would have been much easier and clearer (and would get broader acceptance by the community).
That the whole thing was not put that way contributes to the impression that users should be convinced into a support contract.
Rainer
Joerg Heinicke schrieb:
> On 24.09.2008 00:00, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>> Yeah. I read this as "3 months after release n+1 is out, release n
>> becomes closed source". I'm wondering how long it will take for forks
>> to appear that will provide open source bug fixes to old releases.
>
> I don't think that's n+1 but n: "After a new major version of Spring is
> released, community maintenance updates will be issued for three months
> to address initial stability issues." They wouldn't talk about "initial
> stability issues" anymore if it were n+1.
>
> Joerg
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Leszek Gawron wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>> Joerg Heinicke wrote:
>>> On 24.09.2008 00:00, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah. I read this as "3 months after release n+1 is out, release n
>>>> becomes closed source". I'm wondering how long it will take for
>>>> forks to appear that will provide open source bug fixes to old
>>>> releases.
>>>
>>> I don't think that's n+1 but n: "After a new major version of Spring
>>> is released, community maintenance updates will be issued for three
>>> months to address initial stability issues." They wouldn't talk
>>> about "initial stability issues" anymore if it were n+1.
>>
>> Wow, that's even worse...
>
> That move is probably plain stupid. Rod Johnson states that the full
> source tree will still be available - there will be simply no public
> releases after 3 months and no svn tags to build that release
> yourself. You will only be able to build snapshots (better said
> internal releases) to address the issues you encounter.
>
> Yet again: plain stupid. Every open source project will have to track
> it's spring version by its own. How will the project be able to report
> issues if 99% of the world will be using snapshots?
>
> "My spring version r144554 shows some problem"? Clearly this is very
> short sighted.
There's an easy way the OSS community can react to that: create an
OpenSpring.org website that will provide "official open source
maintenance releases" from well-known revisions of the SpringSource SCM.
That way, people will be able to use e.g. "openspring 2.4.8" which will
actually be springsource r144554
> It is even more insulting to the comunity stating that it is too
> costly for SpringSource to do 'mvn deploy' from time to time. It's
> just a marketing version of "Buy a damn subscription!".
>
> There's an quick and easy way to force users to subscription: just
> make major releases less frequent.
>
> If you haven't read on TSS: Although the prices are not publicly known
> someone stated that yearly subscription is something about $16 000...
Ouch. Spring was born as a lightweight and open source alternative to
big and costly J2EE containers. It's now as big and costly (and as
bloated?) as a J2EE container...
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez - http://bluxte.net
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Leszek Gawron <lg...@mobilebox.pl>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Joerg Heinicke wrote:
>> On 24.09.2008 00:00, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah. I read this as "3 months after release n+1 is out, release n
>>> becomes closed source". I'm wondering how long it will take for forks
>>> to appear that will provide open source bug fixes to old releases.
>>
>> I don't think that's n+1 but n: "After a new major version of Spring
>> is released, community maintenance updates will be issued for three
>> months to address initial stability issues." They wouldn't talk about
>> "initial stability issues" anymore if it were n+1.
>
> Wow, that's even worse...
That move is probably plain stupid. Rod Johnson states that the full
source tree will still be available - there will be simply no public
releases after 3 months and no svn tags to build that release yourself.
You will only be able to build snapshots (better said internal releases)
to address the issues you encounter.
Yet again: plain stupid. Every open source project will have to track
it's spring version by its own. How will the project be able to report
issues if 99% of the world will be using snapshots?
"My spring version r144554 shows some problem"? Clearly this is very
short sighted.
It is even more insulting to the comunity stating that it is too costly
for SpringSource to do 'mvn deploy' from time to time. It's just a
marketing version of "Buy a damn subscription!".
There's an quick and easy way to force users to subscription: just make
major releases less frequent.
If you haven't read on TSS: Although the prices are not publicly known
someone stated that yearly subscription is something about $16 000...
lg
--
Leszek Gawron http://www.mobilebox.pl/krs.html
CTO at MobileBox Ltd.
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
> On 24.09.2008 00:00, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>> Yeah. I read this as "3 months after release n+1 is out, release n
>> becomes closed source". I'm wondering how long it will take for forks
>> to appear that will provide open source bug fixes to old releases.
>
> I don't think that's n+1 but n: "After a new major version of Spring
> is released, community maintenance updates will be issued for three
> months to address initial stability issues." They wouldn't talk about
> "initial stability issues" anymore if it were n+1.
Wow, that's even worse...
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez - http://bluxte.net
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 24.09.2008 00:00, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Yeah. I read this as "3 months after release n+1 is out, release n
> becomes closed source". I'm wondering how long it will take for forks to
> appear that will provide open source bug fixes to old releases.
I don't think that's n+1 but n: "After a new major version of Spring is
released, community maintenance updates will be issued for three months
to address initial stability issues." They wouldn't talk about "initial
stability issues" anymore if it were n+1.
Joerg
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
> On 23.09.2008 22:43, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
>
>> As the number of versions of Spring used in production grows, it is
>> impossible for us to provide free maintenance for multiple releases
>> and perform backports of issues. Doing so would unfairly subsidize
>> conservative customers who want to remain on a previous version, at
>> the cost of the open source community.
>
> The reasoning is totally awkward. Nobody questions discontinuing
> support for old major releases. But how does the above justify not
> providing patch releases after 3 month of a major release? [1] They
> are doing those releases anyway.
>
> The last sentence above is purely a joke. At the end the new
> maintenance policy is a means to push people into the enterprise
> support program. They are absolutely free to do so, but they should
> admit it not talk crap.
Yeah. I read this as "3 months after release n+1 is out, release n
becomes closed source". I'm wondering how long it will take for forks to
appear that will provide open source bug fixes to old releases.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez - http://bluxte.net
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 23.09.2008 22:43, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> As the number of versions of Spring used in production grows, it is
> impossible for us to provide free maintenance for multiple releases
> and perform backports of issues. Doing so would unfairly subsidize
> conservative customers who want to remain on a previous version, at
> the cost of the open source community.
The reasoning is totally awkward. Nobody questions discontinuing support
for old major releases. But how does the above justify not providing
patch releases after 3 month of a major release? [1] They are doing
those releases anyway.
The last sentence above is purely a joke. At the end the new maintenance
policy is a means to push people into the enterprise support program.
They are absolutely free to do so, but they should admit it not talk crap.
Joerg
[1] http://www.springsource.com/products/enterprise/maintenancepolicy
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Peter Hunsberger <pe...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 22.09.2008 21:09, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>> Perhaps an old news for some, but I would like to know how you guys
>> think this affects cocoon:
>>
>> http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=50727
>>
>> Are we going to take some actions on that?
>
> IMO it's a shame, I'm really disappointed. Not even JBoss did something
> similar to that. I wonder if they can keep this up.
>
> The source is supposed to be available though meaning we aren't forced to
> take any actions. Also it might be enough to just use the available
> releases. If somebody has more recent releases due to enterprise service
> support he will be free to use those.
>
> Joerg
>
Don't think the impact is anything major:
---------------------------
What the maintenance policy will mean to you:
For the open source community: If you are happy to track the latest
major release of Spring (e.g. 3.0, 3.1 or 4.0), all fixes go into the
next major release. You get all the latest features and up-to-date
fixes--what you would expect from any healthy open source project.
For enterprise production users: If you are an enterprise customer
that cannot or will not regularly upgrade to the latest release--that
is, your use of open source differs from normal open source culture of
following the latest release--you can subscribe to our SpringSource
Enterprise products. By doing this you help to ensure that innovation
continues to be available to the community. Given that such customers
have little tolerance for risk, running open source in the core of
their applications without support makes no sense anyway.
As the number of versions of Spring used in production grows, it is
impossible for us to provide free maintenance for multiple releases
and perform backports of issues. Doing so would unfairly subsidize
conservative customers who want to remain on a previous version, at
the cost of the open source community.
SpringSource contributes a huge and growing amount of open source to
the community. Check out the around one hundred releases this year
across the many open source projects we are involved in. Providing a
clear maintenance policy will ensure that we can continue to do so.
Rod Johnson, Spring Founder & CEO, SpringSource
------------------
--
Peter Hunsberger
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 22.09.2008 21:09, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Perhaps an old news for some, but I would like to know how you guys
> think this affects cocoon:
>
> http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=50727
>
> Are we going to take some actions on that?
IMO it's a shame, I'm really disappointed. Not even JBoss did something
similar to that. I wonder if they can keep this up.
The source is supposed to be available though meaning we aren't forced
to take any actions. Also it might be enough to just use the available
releases. If somebody has more recent releases due to enterprise service
support he will be free to use those.
Joerg
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 24.09.2008 17:10, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> There is a worst case scenario now: What if they don't collect enough
> money from subscriptions and do the next step: remove the 3 months
> window or worse go full closed source?
Spring is released with Apache 2 license so we are free to grab and host
a fork if it will be necessary.
> I think changing the rules is not fair at all. That should rings our
> bells. Most important, our own user base will suffer. Any of our user
> now have to have in the pocket 16k yearly in order to deploy a cocoon
> 2.2 based application. That does not sounds good at all.
Of course it's a Bad Thing, but they are free to do so and we have to
live with it. As it looks now it's gonna be alright.
> There are many ways to describe the spirit of the apache community, but
> there is one that I like more than all the others: 'we care about people
> more than we care about code'. We have to do something.
No idea how the one relates to the other :) But I oppose immediate
actions. I wrote I really wonder if they are gonna keep up the policy in
the state it is right now. And even if there is no reason for immediate
actions since it still "works". We just have to go from one major
release to the next one (which is actually minor) without a lots of
intermediate patch releases.
Joerg
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@juntadeandalucia.es>.
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 22:17 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 09:10 -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> There is a worst case scenario now: What if they don't collect
enough
> >> money from subscriptions and do the next step: remove the 3 months
> >> window or worse go full closed source?
> >>
> >
> > How people feel to create a spring fork here on the ASF and we can
make
> > sure that we will not have this problem in the future?
> >
> >
> You do realize that some ASF board members are employed by
SpringSource,
> right?
Meaning?
I did not know but to be honest that should not influence
whether the ASF would fork spring and secure that it keeps open.
However let us see whether their keep this policy and how that influence
us.
salu2
--
Thorsten Scherler thorsten.at.apache.org
Open Source Java consulting, training and solutions
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org>.
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
> Ralph Goers wrote:
>> First, let me say that I don't think the Spring policy is going to end
>> up being as bad as it was made out to be at first glance, although that
>> may just be wishful thinking.
>
> I have the same hopes but something tells me that it is only another
> step into the direction of closed source :-(
I'm glad to see that wishful thinking can be helpful:
http://blog.springsource.com/2008/10/07/a-question-of-balance-tuning-the-maintenance-policy/
For those who don't want to read Rod's (rather long) blog entry, here is
the most relevant part of it:
"We are amending our maintenance policy in the light of community
feedback. We will make regular binary releases from the Spring trunk
available to the community, with no 3 month window. For each version of
Spring, community releases will be available while it remains the trunk
or until the next version is stable."
In particular this means that Spring will roll 2.5.x releases until the
first release candidate of Spring 3.0 is available.
I think this is well balanced and will help all parties:
On the one hand SpringSource gets paid for maintaining old stuff like
1.2.x/2.0.x and soon 2.5.x. This also means that if you use Spring or
recommend Spring to your customers you can be sure that there will be
maintenance releases available for 3 years. Compare this to e.g. Guice
which was released in April 2007 the last time.
On the other hand, those who want to use Spring for free, just have to
upgrade regularly to the latest version. This gives you all the latest
features of Spring and SpringSource gets early feedback.
--
Reinhard Pötz Managing Director, {Indoqa} GmbH
http://www.indoqa.com/en/people/reinhard.poetz/
Member of the Apache Software Foundation
Apache Cocoon Committer, PMC member reinhard@apache.org
________________________________________________________________________
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org>.
Ralph Goers wrote:
> First, let me say that I don't think the Spring policy is going to end
> up being as bad as it was made out to be at first glance, although that
> may just be wishful thinking.
I have the same hopes but something tells me that it is only another
step into the direction of closed source :-(
> In any case, I think it is extremely
> premature to talk about forking the code.
yes it is, but I fear that we will see several forks because not
everybody will be eager to build Spring himself and put them into
internal repositories.
> I think if you were to put yourself in the position where you were a
> happy employee of SpringSource looking to insure that your company stays
> healthy into the future, you would find it difficult to support the code
> being forked into the ASF. I certainly know I would. Although you'd
> probably like to think that what you do at the ASF is completely
> independent of your employer it is never really quite that simple.
Sure, it wouldn't be easy for them but I guess that they would simply
abstain from all related decisions. (Except from lobbying against an ASF
fork of Spring they can't do anything else anyway because voting against
it wouldn't prevent anything AFAIU)
--
Reinhard Pötz Managing Director, {Indoqa} GmbH
http://www.indoqa.com/en/people/reinhard.poetz/
Member of the Apache Software Foundation
Apache Cocoon Committer, PMC member reinhard@apache.org
________________________________________________________________________
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
First, let me say that I don't think the Spring policy is going to end
up being as bad as it was made out to be at first glance, although that
may just be wishful thinking. In any case, I think it is extremely
premature to talk about forking the code.
I think if you were to put yourself in the position where you were a
happy employee of SpringSource looking to insure that your company stays
healthy into the future, you would find it difficult to support the code
being forked into the ASF. I certainly know I would. Although you'd
probably like to think that what you do at the ASF is completely
independent of your employer it is never really quite that simple.
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
> Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 09:10 -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> There is a worst case scenario now: What if they don't collect enough
>>>> money from subscriptions and do the next step: remove the 3 months
>>>> window or worse go full closed source?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> How people feel to create a spring fork here on the ASF and we can make
>>> sure that we will not have this problem in the future?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> You do realize that some ASF board members are employed by SpringSource,
>> right?
>>
>
> Should this have any influence on our decisions?
>
>
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org>.
Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 09:10 -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There is a worst case scenario now: What if they don't collect enough
>>> money from subscriptions and do the next step: remove the 3 months
>>> window or worse go full closed source?
>>>
>>
>> How people feel to create a spring fork here on the ASF and we can make
>> sure that we will not have this problem in the future?
>>
>>
> You do realize that some ASF board members are employed by SpringSource,
> right?
Should this have any influence on our decisions?
--
Reinhard Pötz Managing Director, {Indoqa} GmbH
http://www.indoqa.com/en/people/reinhard.poetz/
Member of the Apache Software Foundation
Apache Cocoon Committer, PMC member reinhard@apache.org
________________________________________________________________________
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 09:10 -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is a worst case scenario now: What if they don't collect enough
>> money from subscriptions and do the next step: remove the 3 months
>> window or worse go full closed source?
>>
>
> How people feel to create a spring fork here on the ASF and we can make
> sure that we will not have this problem in the future?
>
>
You do realize that some ASF board members are employed by SpringSource,
right?
Ralph
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 09:10 -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is a worst case scenario now: What if they don't collect enough
> money from subscriptions and do the next step: remove the 3 months
> window or worse go full closed source?
How people feel to create a spring fork here on the ASF and we can make
sure that we will not have this problem in the future?
salu2
>
> I think changing the rules is not fair at all. That should rings our
> bells. Most important, our own user base will suffer. Any of our user
> now have to have in the pocket 16k yearly in order to deploy a cocoon
> 2.2 based application. That does not sounds good at all.
>
> There are many ways to describe the spirit of the apache community, but
> there is one that I like more than all the others: 'we care about people
> more than we care about code'. We have to do something.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Antonio Gallardo.
>
>
> Antonio Gallardo escribió:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Perhaps an old news for some, but I would like to know how you guys
> > think this affects cocoon:
> >
> > http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=50727
> >
> > Are we going to take some actions on that?
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Antonio Gallardo.
> >
>
--
Thorsten Scherler thorsten.at.apache.org
Open Source Java consulting, training and solutions
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Peter Hunsberger <pe...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is a worst case scenario now: What if they don't collect enough
> money from subscriptions and do the next step: remove the 3 months
> window or worse go full closed source?
>
> I think changing the rules is not fair at all. That should rings our
> bells. Most important, our own user base will suffer. Any of our user
> now have to have in the pocket 16k yearly in order to deploy a cocoon
> 2.2 based application. That does not sounds good at all.
>
> There are many ways to describe the spirit of the apache community, but
> there is one that I like more than all the others: 'we care about people
> more than we care about code'. We have to do something.
>
I'm not convinced that anything needs to be done at the moment. I
don't like what they've done but I also don't think they are stupid,
they are not going to piss off their entire user base. I'd suggest we
simply continue to watch what happens for the next three months (at
least) before we conclude that any action is necessary. If at that
point we see real problems it won't be "too late", we should still
have a stable base that can continue to work for another 6 months or
so.
At this point maybe the best thing to do is scope out possible
directions to head if this does indeed turn out to be an issue?
--
Peter Hunsberger
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
Hi,
There is a worst case scenario now: What if they don't collect enough
money from subscriptions and do the next step: remove the 3 months
window or worse go full closed source?
I think changing the rules is not fair at all. That should rings our
bells. Most important, our own user base will suffer. Any of our user
now have to have in the pocket 16k yearly in order to deploy a cocoon
2.2 based application. That does not sounds good at all.
There are many ways to describe the spirit of the apache community, but
there is one that I like more than all the others: 'we care about people
more than we care about code'. We have to do something.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
Antonio Gallardo escribió:
> Hi folks,
>
> Perhaps an old news for some, but I would like to know how you guys
> think this affects cocoon:
>
> http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=50727
>
> Are we going to take some actions on that?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Antonio Gallardo.
>
Re: New Spring Maintenance policy
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net> wrote:
> ...I would like to know how you guys
> think this affects cocoon:
>
> http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=50727
Note the corresponding FAQ at
http://www.springsource.com/products/enterprise/maintenancepolicy/faq
I think the only impact is that if Cocoon uses older releases of
Spring, and needs patches for them, we'll have to create and/or use
snapshots. Assuming the Spring codebase is trustable via its test
suite, that's IMHO only an organizational problem.
-Bertrand