Revivingg 2.1 development (was Re: [RT] OSGi based blocks)

[Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>]

Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> On 3/15/06, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip/>
> 
>>>> I would like to see blocks and Cocoon 2.1.X move along in parallel, and
>>>> as soon as blocks are sufficiently mature and stable, they merge. The
>>>> current state of affairs with a tiny minority working on blocks (however
>>>> cool) and nothing else happening is far from healthy.
>>>>
>>> Perhaps, but from what I understand nothing is really stopping you
>>> from working on anything else?
>> 2.1 is a branch - so innovation shouldn't really happen there. Trunk I
>> don't understand, and is too unstable (not a negative, just a fact[1])
>> for me to find time to understand it. So I don't see quite what I could
>> work on. And I suspect the case is the same for others too.
>>
>> Upayavira
>>
>> [1] Some people have time and resources to give to working with that
>> level of instability. Others need something relatively stable to work on
>> incrementally within their work. I see no problem with either approach,
>> I just want us to bring the latter back into play in our community.
>>
> 
> Sure, I understand. But that's really my point: Cocoon has always
> taken a bit of learning curve.  The fact that trunk is now new, and
> unusual is a hump for many people, but if Cocoon is every going to
> really move forward then people should either be willing to wait, or
> climb the learning curve.

I'm talking about people who have already climbed that learning curve.
People who have jobs and time constraints and can't justify another
climb until there is something concrete to offer their bosses. This is
an energy resource we are loosing a lot of right now.

> Yes, you loose a little bit from the people that don't have the time
> or energy to climb the curve early in the process.  However, IMO you
> loose even more if there are two main branches of Cocoon to focus on
> instead.

Who _really_ is following the blocks thread anyway other than the core
developers? I want someone else for the rest of us to follow.

Regards, Upayavira

P.S. Note new subject to move away from Daniel's original topic, which
is itself good stuff.

Re: Revivingg 2.1 development (was Re: [RT] OSGi based blocks)

[Peter Hunsberger <pe...@gmail.com>]

On 3/15/06, Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Who _really_ is following the blocks thread anyway other than the core
> developers? I want someone else for the rest of us to follow.

So, what else do you want that you can't do in 2.1 and are unwilling
to do in 2.2?

--
Peter Hunsberger