You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@s-und-n.de> on 2004/03/09 12:23:27 UTC
Doc about important changes
It seems that we need a place where we can put "important changes"
for 2.1.5.
This is currently the renaming of woody to cocoon forms and the
incompatible excalibur-logger change that might cause problems
with existing installations.
Apart from putting it on the Wiki has someone a good idea where to
place such things so that they are visible for people downloading
or extracting the distribution? Perhaps a "Readme.1st" etc.
Carsten
Carsten Ziegeler
Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.osoco.net/weblogs/rael/
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 09.03.2004 14:14, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> - do you want to add an importance="high|low|medium" attribute on
> <action> in changes.xml?
+1 @importance or @impact
> - do you want each block to have it's own status.xml file?
+0
Vadim wrote:
> * Do you want to add a block="name" attribute on <action> in changes.xml?
+0.5 I prefer this about the above one.
Reinhard wrote:
> I think high|low|medium should me more meaningful or in other words self-explaining. What about "newFeature", "incompatibleChange", "minorChange"?
-0.5 to special IMO.
Cheche wrote:
> Given that, why do not use the already priority attribue that has been used on <actions>, but instead of the actions elements, move it to the child element <action>?
+0.5 also a good alternative, but @priority give a bit another attitude
than @impact/@importance.
Hope I did not miss any suggestion :)
Joerg
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 09.03.2004 15:27, Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
>> Mmmh... "impact" has the underlying meaning that it will have some
>> negative effects on some existing applications, which is not the case
>> for 99% of changes (we are careful about back compatibility).
>>
> I was looking for a name, and I found weight as well as a good choice.
>
> I have check the weight definition, and I found "Gravity" as another
> choice.
Please not more abstract than necessary :)
@importance or @impact is a better choice IMO.
Joerg
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
> Mmmh... "impact" has the underlying meaning that it will have some
> negative effects on some existing applications, which is not the case
> for 99% of changes (we are careful about back compatibility).
>
I was looking for a name, and I found weight as well as a good choice.
I have check the weight definition, and I found "Gravity" as another choice.
> Has something be define in Forrest's DTDs in this area?
It is not, but I guess, that if we find a good choice, I am happy to add it.
>
> Sylvain
>
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Sylvain,
>
> I remember looking on this issue on the forrest list a while ago.
> What about impact instead of importance?
Mmmh... "impact" has the underlying meaning that it will have some
negative effects on some existing applications, which is not the case
for 99% of changes (we are careful about back compatibility).
Has something be define in Forrest's DTDs in this area?
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le Mardi, 9 mars 2004, à 14:50 Europe/Zurich, Juan Jose Pablos a écrit :
> ...What about impact instead of importance?
I was thinking about it actually, "impact" seems more appropriate. But
this is not terribly important.
-Bertrand
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>.
Sylvain,
I remember looking on this issue on the forrest list a while ago.
What about impact instead of importance?
Cheers,
Cheche
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> So let's finally vote on this.
>
> - do you want to add an importance="high|low|medium" attribute on
> <action> in changes.xml?
>
> - do you want each block to have it's own status.xml file?
>
> Sylvain
>
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml
Posted by Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
<snip/>
> So let's finally vote on this.
>
> - do you want to add an importance="high|low|medium" attribute on
> <action> in changes.xml?
+1
> - do you want each block to have it's own status.xml file?
+1
/Daniel
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>> It seems that we need a place where we can put "important changes"
>> for 2.1.5.
>>
>> This is currently the renaming of woody to cocoon forms and the
>> incompatible excalibur-logger change that might cause problems with
>> existing installations.
>>
>> Apart from putting it on the Wiki has someone a good idea where to
>> place such things so that they are visible for people downloading or
>> extracting the distribution? Perhaps a "Readme.1st" etc.
>>
>>
>
> Once again the need arises to categorize changes ;-)
>
> Let's finally introduce this "importance" attribute on <action>
> elements, that will allow to clearly distinguish changes. It can be
> used to organize the release notes page (important changes come first)
> and also to filter the announcement email (only important changes are
> relevant here).
>
> I also propose that each block has its own status.xml file. The main
> status.xml will be used for changes to the core, and also change of
> block status (creation, deprecation, etc).
>
> So let's finally vote on this.
>
> - do you want to add an importance="high|low|medium" attribute on
> <action> in changes.xml?
+1
> - do you want each block to have it's own status.xml file?
+1
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
>> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> - do you want each block to have it's own status.xml file?
>>
>>
>> -0, reduces visibility.
>
>
> Having a separate file doesn't mean it doesn't appear on a different
> page in the docs. Cocoon has some nice features for aggregation ;-)
It is easier to peek into one file, especially if it resides in module
root ;-) instead of ferreting through all blocks - and I'm thinking
about developers (including me) here :-)
>> Let's do instead:
>>
>> * Do you want to add a block="name" attribute on <action> in
>> changes.xml?
>>
>> +1
>
>
> Good. The important point is to have a per-block classification, even
> if I personally prefer a per-block file.
Let's do an attribute, please :-)
Vadim
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>> So let's finally vote on this.
>>
>> - do you want to add an importance="high|low|medium" attribute on
>> <action> in changes.xml?
>
>
>
> +0.5. How "importance" is defined - what is important and what is not?
Really subjective, I admit. The one that makes the change will initially
decide for the importance, and this can be later discussed if other
don't agree, although I don't think this will happen often.
>> - do you want each block to have it's own status.xml file?
>
>
>
> -0, reduces visibility.
Having a separate file doesn't mean it doesn't appear on a different
page in the docs. Cocoon has some nice features for aggregation ;-)
> Let's do instead:
>
> * Do you want to add a block="name" attribute on <action> in
> changes.xml?
>
> +1
Good. The important point is to have a per-block classification, even if
I personally prefer a per-block file.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml
Posted by Geoff Howard <co...@leverageweb.com>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>
>> So let's finally vote on this.
>>
>> - do you want to add an importance="high|low|medium" attribute on
>> <action> in changes.xml?
>
+.5
>> - do you want each block to have it's own status.xml file?
>
>
>
> -0, reduces visibility.
>
> Let's do instead:
>
> * Do you want to add a block="name" attribute on <action> in
> changes.xml?
>
> +1
+.5 to either, but I like the attribute better.
Geoff
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> So let's finally vote on this.
>
> - do you want to add an importance="high|low|medium" attribute on
> <action> in changes.xml?
+0.5. How "importance" is defined - what is important and what is not?
> - do you want each block to have it's own status.xml file?
-0, reduces visibility.
Let's do instead:
* Do you want to add a block="name" attribute on <action> in changes.xml?
+1
Vadim
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml
Posted by Tim Larson <ti...@keow.org>.
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 03:37:11PM +0100, Reinhard P?tz wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> >Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> >>
> >So let's finally vote on this.
> >
> >- do you want to add an importance="high|low|medium" attribute on
> ><action> in changes.xml?
>
> I think high|low|medium should me more meaningful or in other words
> self-explaining. What about "newFeature", "incompatibleChange",
> "minorChange"?
This would change "importance" to something like "changeType", right?
+1 with self-explaining names (even if I am not good at choosing them :)
> >- do you want each block to have it's own status.xml file?
>
> As long as we dont have RCB (real Cocoon blocks) I'm in favour of Vadims
> proposal.
+1 to block attribute
--Tim Larson
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
<snip/>
>>
>> - do you want to add an importance="high|low|medium" attribute on
>> <action> in changes.xml?
>
>
> I think high|low|medium should me more meaningful or in other words
> self-explaining. What about "newFeature", "incompatibleChange",
> "minorChange"?
These words are too specific, or indicate a different classification.
For example, the new forms block is a "newFeature", just as is the
ability to set the output encoding on JSPReader. But the first one is
really important (should appear in announcement) whereas the second is not.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>.
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
>
>
> I think high|low|medium should me more meaningful or in other words
> self-explaining. What about "newFeature", "incompatibleChange",
> "minorChange"?
>
Well if the output of that is going to be just more visibility to some
actions, then this will increase complexity adding poor value.
The idea (at least the one in my head) is that in your can sort/select
actions base on the "importance" (or impact... or gavity). So you can
create a status just only for important actions.
Given that, why do not use the already priority attribue that has been
used on <actions>, but instead of the actions elements, move it to the
child element <action>?
Cheers,
Cheche
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml
Posted by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org>.
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>> It seems that we need a place where we can put "important changes"
>> for 2.1.5.
>>
>> This is currently the renaming of woody to cocoon forms and the
>> incompatible excalibur-logger change that might cause problems with
>> existing installations.
>>
>> Apart from putting it on the Wiki has someone a good idea where to
>> place such things so that they are visible for people downloading or
>> extracting the distribution? Perhaps a "Readme.1st" etc.
>>
>>
>
> Once again the need arises to categorize changes ;-)
>
> Let's finally introduce this "importance" attribute on <action>
> elements, that will allow to clearly distinguish changes. It can be
> used to organize the release notes page (important changes come first)
> and also to filter the announcement email (only important changes are
> relevant here).
>
> I also propose that each block has its own status.xml file. The main
> status.xml will be used for changes to the core, and also change of
> block status (creation, deprecation, etc).
>
> So let's finally vote on this.
>
> - do you want to add an importance="high|low|medium" attribute on
> <action> in changes.xml?
I think high|low|medium should me more meaningful or in other words
self-explaining. What about "newFeature", "incompatibleChange",
"minorChange"?
>
> - do you want each block to have it's own status.xml file?
As long as we dont have RCB (real Cocoon blocks) I'm in favour of Vadims
proposal.
--
Reinhard
Re: [Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml (was: Re: Doc about important changes)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le Mardi, 9 mars 2004, à 14:14 Europe/Zurich, Sylvain Wallez a écrit :
> - do you want to add an importance="high|low|medium" attribute on
> <action> in changes.xml?
+1
> - do you want each block to have it's own status.xml file?
+0.5
(trying to be more precise in votes: I'm for it but cannot help ATM)
-Bertrand
[Vote] new "importance" attribute on in status.xml (was: Re: Doc
about important changes)
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>It seems that we need a place where we can put "important changes" for 2.1.5.
>
>This is currently the renaming of woody to cocoon forms and the incompatible excalibur-logger change that might cause problems with existing installations.
>
>Apart from putting it on the Wiki has someone a good idea where to place such things so that they are visible for people downloading or extracting the distribution? Perhaps a "Readme.1st" etc.
>
>
Once again the need arises to categorize changes ;-)
Let's finally introduce this "importance" attribute on <action>
elements, that will allow to clearly distinguish changes. It can be used
to organize the release notes page (important changes come first) and
also to filter the announcement email (only important changes are
relevant here).
I also propose that each block has its own status.xml file. The main
status.xml will be used for changes to the core, and also change of
block status (creation, deprecation, etc).
So let's finally vote on this.
- do you want to add an importance="high|low|medium" attribute on
<action> in changes.xml?
- do you want each block to have it's own status.xml file?
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: Doc about important changes
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
Carsten Ziegeler dijo:
> It seems that we need a place where we can put "important changes"
> for 2.1.5.
>
> This is currently the renaming of woody to cocoon forms and the
> incompatible excalibur-logger change that might cause problems
> with existing installations.
>
> Apart from putting it on the Wiki has someone a good idea where to
> place such things so that they are visible for people downloading
> or extracting the distribution? Perhaps a "Readme.1st" etc.
What about the RELEASE NOTE?
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: Doc about important changes
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@reverycodes.com>.
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>It seems that we need a place where we can put "important changes"
>for 2.1.5.
>
>This is currently the renaming of woody to cocoon forms and the
>incompatible excalibur-logger change that might cause problems
>with existing installations.
>
>Apart from putting it on the Wiki has someone a good idea where to
>place such things so that they are visible for people downloading
>or extracting the distribution? Perhaps a "Readme.1st" etc.
>
>
Why not updating.xml ? It could be reorganized onto several sections,
i.e. 2.0 -> 2.1, 2.1.4 -> 2.1.5, etc
Vadim
Re: Doc about important changes
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le Mardi, 9 mars 2004, à 12:23 Europe/Zurich, Carsten Ziegeler a écrit :
> ...Apart from putting it on the Wiki has someone a good idea where to
> place such things so that they are visible for people downloading
> or extracting the distribution? Perhaps a "Readme.1st" etc.
How about a WARNING.TXT which points to important release info on the
web site?
In this case it could point to
http://cocoon.apache.org/2.1/changes.html - but it would be good to
have a way to highlight "important" changes there, dunno if this
requires changes to the status.xml processing.
-Bertrand