You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org> on 2003/03/24 21:04:17 UTC
Re: [rant] Re: [vote] micro-decision for docs: creation of
cocoon-docs CVS module
On 24/3/03 3:09 pm, "Stefano Mazzocchi" <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> Anyway, we can't force people to do anything: if they won't migrate from
> 2.0, we have failed and we should start reconsidering our architectural
> strategies because our user base is not following us.
Hmm.. I don't think you're right on this, Stefano... Look at HTTPd, still a
lot of people are using 1.3, when 2.0 is delivering (for example) _A_LOT_
more performance than the old tree...
Still, a huge part of the user base didn't "switch" just yet...
Pier
Re: [rant] Re: [vote] micro-decision for docs: creation of
cocoon-docs CVS module
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>.
On 25/3/03 9:23 am, "Stefano Mazzocchi" <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>> On 24/3/03 3:09 pm, "Stefano Mazzocchi" <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Anyway, we can't force people to do anything: if they won't migrate from
>>> 2.0, we have failed and we should start reconsidering our architectural
>>> strategies because our user base is not following us.
>>
>>
>> Hmm.. I don't think you're right on this, Stefano... Look at HTTPd, still a
>> lot of people are using 1.3, when 2.0 is delivering (for example) _A_LOT_
>> more performance than the old tree...
>>
>> Still, a huge part of the user base didn't "switch" just yet...
>
> key words: 'just yet'.
Gotcha...
> I didn't say "how long". AFAIK, many people are still using Cocoon 1.8.2
> in production and it's been running for two years without failing once.
>
> Yet, everybody considers Cocoon 1.x dead and no development is taking
> place anymore and nobody objects it.
>
> Cocoon 2.0.x will remain there potentially for years and will be used
> for many more in production environments.
Like us at VNU, where we still are running a couple of httpd 1.2.6 :-)
> Still, if development doesn't move on and transition isn't smooth, we
> are actually forking the project.
>
> If development on HTTPD continues on both fronts, they failed since the
> community shows that 2.0 is nothing better than what they already had.
>
> i don't think this is the case, I think it's just a matter of time.
>
> As it will be for Cocoon 2.1.
I'd say: as it is _already_ for Cocoon 2.0/2.1... Since we split the repos
(and if I'm not wrong), we had 32 commits to the 2.0 repo, more than 370 to
the 2.1 one... So... We're all happy campers! :-)
Pier
Re: [rant] Re: [vote] micro-decision for docs: creation of cocoon-docs
CVS module
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> On 24/3/03 3:09 pm, "Stefano Mazzocchi" <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Anyway, we can't force people to do anything: if they won't migrate from
>>2.0, we have failed and we should start reconsidering our architectural
>>strategies because our user base is not following us.
>
>
> Hmm.. I don't think you're right on this, Stefano... Look at HTTPd, still a
> lot of people are using 1.3, when 2.0 is delivering (for example) _A_LOT_
> more performance than the old tree...
>
> Still, a huge part of the user base didn't "switch" just yet...
key words: 'just yet'.
I didn't say "how long". AFAIK, many people are still using Cocoon 1.8.2
in production and it's been running for two years without failing once.
Yet, everybody considers Cocoon 1.x dead and no development is taking
place anymore and nobody objects it.
Cocoon 2.0.x will remain there potentially for years and will be used
for many more in production environments.
Still, if development doesn't move on and transition isn't smooth, we
are actually forking the project.
If development on HTTPD continues on both fronts, they failed since the
community shows that 2.0 is nothing better than what they already had.
i don't think this is the case, I think it's just a matter of time.
As it will be for Cocoon 2.1.
if a project creates a new generation and their development base splits,
they are, in fact, forking the project.
See Tomcat.
This is the *worst* thing that can happen to an open source project.
Luckily, Apache is very tollerant at forced cohabitation and eventually,
split development bases remerge down the road.
Stefano.
Re: [rant] Re: [vote] micro-decision for docs: creation ofcocoon-docs CVS module
Posted by "J.D. Daniels" <jd...@datatrio.com>.
Actually... I dont httpd is a fiar example. There is a reason for that...
there is not many modules that function correctly under 2.0... we are only
waiting for them to catch up :D at my last count, there are 4 that i use
that dont work. (Among them mod_jk)
By itself, 2.0 kicks butt... but i can't use it in production yet :(
JD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pier Fumagalli" <pi...@betaversion.org>
To: <co...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [rant] Re: [vote] micro-decision for docs: creation
ofcocoon-docs CVS module
> On 24/3/03 3:09 pm, "Stefano Mazzocchi" <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, we can't force people to do anything: if they won't migrate from
> > 2.0, we have failed and we should start reconsidering our architectural
> > strategies because our user base is not following us.
>
> Hmm.. I don't think you're right on this, Stefano... Look at HTTPd, still
a
> lot of people are using 1.3, when 2.0 is delivering (for example) _A_LOT_
> more performance than the old tree...
>
> Still, a huge part of the user base didn't "switch" just yet...
>
> Pier
>