You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org> on 2004/03/09 16:21:09 UTC
[Vote] Removing Woody
As you may saw I've reverted the removal of Woody. IMO just for now and
it should be removed ASAP. So let's vote on this:
variant A: remove Woody after 2.1.5 release
variant B: remove Woody after 2.1.6 release
variant C: leave Woody where it is and mark it as "won't change"
Your votes please!
--
Reinhard
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Ugo Cei <u....@cbim.it>.
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
>
> As you may saw I've reverted the removal of Woody. IMO just for now and
> it should be removed ASAP. So let's vote on this:
> variant B: remove Woody after 2.1.6 release
+1
Ugo
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Daniel Fagerstrom <da...@nada.kth.se>.
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
> As you may saw I've reverted the removal of Woody. IMO just for now and
> it should be removed ASAP. So let's vote on this:
>
>
> variant A: remove Woody after 2.1.5 release
+1
> variant B: remove Woody after 2.1.6 release
+0
> variant C: leave Woody where it is and mark it as "won't change"
-0
/Daniel
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>.
Reinhard Pötz dijo:
>
> As you may saw I've reverted the removal of Woody. IMO just for now and
> it should be removed ASAP. So let's vote on this:
>
>
> variant A: remove Woody after 2.1.5 release
+1
Woody never reached a stable "status" was at alpha stages from the
beginning. A sooner remove means less pain in the future.
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org>.
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
>
> As you may saw I've reverted the removal of Woody. IMO just for now
> and it should be removed ASAP. So let's vote on this:
>
>
> variant A: remove Woody after 2.1.5 release
>
> variant B: remove Woody after 2.1.6 release
>
> variant C: leave Woody where it is and mark it as "won't change"
>
>
> Your votes please!
>
I'm +1 on A, +0.5 on B and -1 on C
(there is an upgrade script available which has of course to be tested
but sooner or later it will do the upgrade for our users!)
--
Reinhard
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody / transition to maintenance
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
> On 09.03.2004 19:48, Tim Larson wrote:
>
>> To summarize, I am changing my vote to:
>>
>> -1 for locking woody via permissions or CVS (vote, not veto, of course)
>>
>> +1 for freezing woody except for documentation clarification, security
>> updates, and small bugfixes. (freeze via policy, not permissions)
>
>
> I do not want to maintain two versions (even only for small bugfixes).
Me neither.
I say we incorporate changes IF and ONLY IF there is a major security
hole in the woody block. Otherwise, it's is to be considered like the
skin layer that a snake leaves behind when it grows.
--
Stefano.
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody / transition to maintenance
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 09.03.2004 19:48, Tim Larson wrote:
> To summarize, I am changing my vote to:
>
> -1 for locking woody via permissions or CVS (vote, not veto, of course)
>
> +1 for freezing woody except for documentation clarification, security
> updates, and small bugfixes. (freeze via policy, not permissions)
I do not want to maintain two versions (even only for small bugfixes).
Joerg
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody / transition to maintenance
Posted by Tim Larson <ti...@keow.org>.
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:12:58PM +0100, Joerg Heinicke wrote:
> Tim Larson wrote:
>
> >to let bug fixes (not new features) into the Woody block.
>
> -1 Woody is write protected - either hard (permissions) or soft (by words).
To explain this more clearly, we are temporarily keeping the woody
block as a part of our deployed-base-friendly policies. This is
motivated by the fact that Woody does have a deployed base, despite its
alpha designation, and like other deployed software (e.g. Cocon-2.0.*)
we should continue to support it for a resonable period. This usually
means preserving the documentation, fixing minor bugs, and doing any
necessary security updates. Anything less would (IMHO) be setting a
very poor precedent for our development and maintenance practices.
To summarize, I am changing my vote to:
-1 for locking woody via permissions or CVS (vote, not veto, of course)
+1 for freezing woody except for documentation clarification, security
updates, and small bugfixes. (freeze via policy, not permissions)
--Tim Larson
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 09.03.2004 16:21, Reinhard Pötz wrote:
> variant A: remove Woody after 2.1.5 release
+1
> variant B: remove Woody after 2.1.6 release
+0
> variant C: leave Woody where it is and mark it as "won't change"
-1
Tim Larson wrote:
> to let bug fixes (not new features) into the Woody block.
-1 Woody is write protected - either hard (permissions) or soft (by words).
Joerg
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
On 09 Mar 2004, at 16:21, Reinhard Pötz wrote:
> As you may saw I've reverted the removal of Woody. IMO just for now
> and it should be removed ASAP. So let's vote on this:
>
>
> variant A: remove Woody after 2.1.5 release
> variant B: remove Woody after 2.1.6 release
I'm all for removing Woody when the cforms block reaches 1.0 status +
one or two releases after that. No need to push ourselves too hard for
that - I'm sure it will happen in due time.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source Java & XML An Orixo Member
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 10.03.2004 13:20, Upayavira wrote:
>> Why not adding just a prominent warning at the beginning of each page:
>> This documentation is no further maintained. Go to Forms* pages.
>
> Gosh. This is getting complicated! I'll add a warning.
:) Thanks for your effort.
Joerg
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@upaya.co.uk>.
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
> On 10.03.2004 12:49, Unico Hommes wrote:
>
>>>> +1 to keep the Woody* wiki pages and any other Woody documentation
>>>> for as long as we keep the Woody block.
>>>>
>>> Good point. I will leave the Woody* wiki pages as is, and create
>>> Forms* pages as well.
>>>
>>>
>> Is it worth to replace their content with a link to the equivalent
>> Forms* page?
>
>
> Why not adding just a prominent warning at the beginning of each page:
> This documentation is no further maintained. Go to Forms* pages.
Gosh. This is getting complicated! I'll add a warning.
Regards, Upayavira
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 10.03.2004 12:49, Unico Hommes wrote:
>>> +1 to keep the Woody* wiki pages and any other Woody documentation
>>> for as long as we keep the Woody block.
>>>
>> Good point. I will leave the Woody* wiki pages as is, and create
>> Forms* pages as well.
>>
>>
> Is it worth to replace their content with a link to the equivalent
> Forms* page?
Why not adding just a prominent warning at the beginning of each page:
This documentation is no further maintained. Go to Forms* pages.
Joerg
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Unico Hommes <un...@hippo.nl>.
Upayavira wrote:
> Tim Larson wrote:
>
>> A few more points:
>>
>> +1 to keep the Woody* wiki pages and any other Woody documentation
>> for as long as we keep the Woody block.
>>
> Good point. I will leave the Woody* wiki pages as is, and create
> Forms* pages as well.
>
>
Is it worth to replace their content with a link to the equivalent
Forms* page?
--
Unico
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@upaya.co.uk>.
Tim Larson wrote:
>A few more points:
>
>+1 to keep the Woody* wiki pages and any other Woody documentation
> for as long as we keep the Woody block.
>
Good point. I will leave the Woody* wiki pages as is, and create Forms*
pages as well.
Upayavira
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Tim Larson <ti...@keow.org>.
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 03:47:30PM +0000, Tim Larson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 04:21:09PM +0100, Reinhard P?tz wrote:
> >
> > As you may saw I've reverted the removal of Woody. IMO just for now and
> > it should be removed ASAP. So let's vote on this:
> >
> > variant A: remove Woody after 2.1.5 release
> >
> > variant B: remove Woody after 2.1.6 release
> >
> > variant C: leave Woody where it is and mark it as "won't change"
> >
> >
> > Your votes please!
> >
> > --
> > Reinhard
> >
>
> +1 to freeze the Woody directory via permissions or CVS right now.
> +1 to keep it at least for the 2.1.5 release.
> +1 to query the users ml after the 2.1.5 release to see if
> there is any reason to keep it for one more release (2.1.6).
>
> We have to remember that even though we state that Woody is alpha,
> there is a pretty large installed userbase already. We have to be
> nice to them to keep them with us during transitions like this.
>
> Please see my email about documenting practices and policies if
> you wonder why I care so much about this.
>
> --Tim Larson
A few more points:
+1 to keep the Woody* wiki pages and any other Woody documentation
for as long as we keep the Woody block.
+0 Freeze the Woody documentation. I only rate this +0 because
even though the code is frozen, the documentation may still
need clarifications and fixes.
+1 to let bug fixes (not new features) into the Woody block.
--Tim Larson
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Tim Larson wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 04:21:09PM +0100, Reinhard P?tz wrote:
>
>
>>As you may saw I've reverted the removal of Woody. IMO just for now and
>>it should be removed ASAP. So let's vote on this:
>>
>>variant A: remove Woody after 2.1.5 release
>>
>>variant B: remove Woody after 2.1.6 release
>>
>>variant C: leave Woody where it is and mark it as "won't change"
>>
>>
>>Your votes please!
>>
>>
>
>+1 to freeze the Woody directory via permissions or CVS right now.
>+1 to keep it at least for the 2.1.5 release.
>+1 to query the users ml after the 2.1.5 release to see if
> there is any reason to keep it for one more release (2.1.6).
>
>We have to remember that even though we state that Woody is alpha,
>there is a pretty large installed userbase already. We have to be
>nice to them to keep them with us during transitions like this.
>
>
I totally second that:
+1 to freeze,
+1 to keep in 2.1.5,
+1 to poll users after 2.1.5.
And thanks a lot (again), Reinhard for this work.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Tim Larson <ti...@keow.org>.
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 04:21:09PM +0100, Reinhard P?tz wrote:
>
> As you may saw I've reverted the removal of Woody. IMO just for now and
> it should be removed ASAP. So let's vote on this:
>
> variant A: remove Woody after 2.1.5 release
>
> variant B: remove Woody after 2.1.6 release
>
> variant C: leave Woody where it is and mark it as "won't change"
>
>
> Your votes please!
>
> --
> Reinhard
>
+1 to freeze the Woody directory via permissions or CVS right now.
+1 to keep it at least for the 2.1.5 release.
+1 to query the users ml after the 2.1.5 release to see if
there is any reason to keep it for one more release (2.1.6).
We have to remember that even though we state that Woody is alpha,
there is a pretty large installed userbase already. We have to be
nice to them to keep them with us during transitions like this.
Please see my email about documenting practices and policies if
you wonder why I care so much about this.
--Tim Larson
Documentation: How to move from Woody to CocoonForms
Posted by Reinhard Pötz <re...@apache.org>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> 2) we created tools to ease the migration [we need to put some docs
> on how to do this]
Initial docs are in Wiki:
http://wiki.cocoondev.org/Wiki.jsp?page=Woody2CocoonForms
--
Reinhard
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Reinhard Pötz wrote:
> variant B: remove Woody after 2.1.6 release
+1
we give our users time, tools and help to show that we do want to keep
innovating, but we *do* care about long term stability.
Woody was an alpha block so we have all the rights in the world to
remove them under their feet, but since it was a very successful alpha
block (and for this reason is becoming the seed for the officially
supported Cocoon Forms framework), we make an effort to make the
transition as smooth as possible.
So:
1) we created the Cocoon Forms block.
From now on, CForms will indicate the content of that block. Woody will
indicate the content of the woody block that is scheduled to be
decommissioned.
2) we created tools to ease the migration [we need to put some docs on
how to do this]
3) we freeze the woody block (this forces development to happen in the
cforms block) now and forever. no changes are getting there. it's read
only and just for short legacy and migration purposes.
4) we schedule to remove this after *two* releases, to give time to
everybody to adjust.
This should make everybody happy: it doesn't hurt to have a frozen
block, as long as everybody understands its status [so we need to
reflect this in both docs and samples!!]
WDYT?
--
Stefano.
Re: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le Mardi, 9 mars 2004, à 16:21 Europe/Zurich, Reinhard Pötz a écrit :
> variant A: remove Woody after 2.1.5 release
+1
-Bertrand
RE: [Vote] Removing Woody
Posted by Matthew Langham <ml...@s-und-n.de>.
>
> As you may saw I've reverted the removal of Woody. IMO just for now and
Thanks for all your work Reinhard!
>
> variant A: remove Woody after 2.1.5 release
>
+1
And post blinking signs everywhere that this will happen :-)
Matthew