Move trunk to BRANCH_2_0?

Hi Lenya devs,

does it already make sense to open a branch for 2.0 and
start 2.1-dev in 
the trunk?

I'm working on some quite fundamental changes to the menubar
generation 
(migrating from XSP to static XML), and really leveraging
the benefits 
without cluttering the sitemaps with selectors would require
to break 
backwards compatibility. Updating wouldn't be much difficult
for users, 
though. I'm also not quite sure yet if all of the changes
make sense, so 
I don't want to commit them to the stable branch.

WDYT? Should I start a vote?

-- Andreas


-- 
Andreas Hartmann, CTO
BeCompany GmbH
http://www.becompany.ch
Tel.: +41 (0) 43 818 57 01


------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribelenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helplenya.apache.org

Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> Hi Lenya devs,
>
> does it already make sense to open a branch for 2.0 and
start 2.1-dev 
> in the trunk?
>
> I'm working on some quite fundamental changes to the
menubar 
> generation (migrating from XSP to static XML), and
really leveraging 
> the benefits without cluttering the sitemaps with
selectors would 
> require to break backwards compatibility. Updating
wouldn't be much 
> difficult for users, though. I'm also not quite sure
yet if all of the 
> changes make sense, so I don't want to commit them to
the stable branch.
>
> WDYT? Should I start a vote?
>
> -- Andreas
>

Makes sense. Should we maybe come up with a roadmap of what
we want to 
do in 2.1? That way we'll know when 2.1 is done.

Richard

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribelenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helplenya.apache.org

Richard Frovarp wrote:
> Andreas Hartmann wrote:
>> Hi Lenya devs,
>>
>> does it already make sense to open a branch for 2.0
and start 2.1-dev
>> in the trunk?
>>
>> I'm working on some quite fundamental changes to
the menubar
>> generation (migrating from XSP to static XML), and
really leveraging
>> the benefits without cluttering the sitemaps with
selectors would
>> require to break backwards compatibility. Updating
wouldn't be much
>> difficult for users, though. I'm also not quite
sure yet if all of the
>> changes make sense, so I don't want to commit them
to the stable branch.
>>
>> WDYT? Should I start a vote?
>>
>> -- Andreas
>>
> 
> Makes sense. Should we maybe come up with a roadmap of
what we want to
> do in 2.1? That way we'll know when 2.1 is done.

i'm also +1 for a 2.0 branch.

nonetheless, we should have a roadmap discussion rsn and try
to determine
* which issues we need to address in further 2.0.x
maintenance releases
* when we want to release 2.1
* and accordingly, which changes should be post 2.1 so as
not to enter
another endless release cycle.

unfortunately, my talk is pretty cheap atm, due to having
effectively
lost two weeks and a conference i'm helping organise (in
case anyone's
around: http://lac.linuxaudio.org). i hope to re-join actively at the
beginning of march.
is there already a wishlist in the wiki? if not, i'll start
one, and
then we can sort it into must-haves for 2.0.x, must-haves
for 2.1, and
nice-to-haves and 3.0 stuff.

wdyt?

-- 
Jörn Nettingsmeier

"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000
lines of code."
  - Ken Thompson.

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribelenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helplenya.apache.org

Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> Richard Frovarp wrote:
>   
>> Andreas Hartmann wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi Lenya devs,
>>>
>>> does it already make sense to open a branch for
2.0 and start 2.1-dev
>>> in the trunk?
>>>
>>> I'm working on some quite fundamental changes
to the menubar
>>> generation (migrating from XSP to static XML),
and really leveraging
>>> the benefits without cluttering the sitemaps
with selectors would
>>> require to break backwards compatibility.
Updating wouldn't be much
>>> difficult for users, though. I'm also not quite
sure yet if all of the
>>> changes make sense, so I don't want to commit
them to the stable branch.
>>>
>>> WDYT? Should I start a vote?
>>>
>>> -- Andreas
>>>
>>>       
>> Makes sense. Should we maybe come up with a roadmap
of what we want to
>> do in 2.1? That way we'll know when 2.1 is done.
>>     
>
> i'm also +1 for a 2.0 branch.
>
> nonetheless, we should have a roadmap discussion rsn
and try to determine
> * which issues we need to address in further 2.0.x
maintenance releases
> * when we want to release 2.1
> * and accordingly, which changes should be post 2.1 so
as not to enter
> another endless release cycle.
>   

We should also do a bug cleanup. We probably have several
stale bugs. We 
also need 2.0.2 and 2.1 target milestones in bugzilla.

Richard

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribelenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helplenya.apache.org

Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> Hi Lenya devs,
> 
> does it already make sense to open a branch for 2.0 and
start 2.1-dev in
> the trunk?
> 
> I'm working on some quite fundamental changes to the
menubar generation
> (migrating from XSP to static XML), and really
leveraging the benefits
> without cluttering the sitemaps with selectors would
require to break
> backwards compatibility. Updating wouldn't be much
difficult for users,
> though. I'm also not quite sure yet if all of the
changes make sense, so
> I don't want to commit them to the stable branch.
> 

I think we should try to avoid breaking backwards
compatibility or if we
really have to, a migration path should be described.
What should we propose to people still using 1.2. Upgrading
to 2.0 or
wait for 2.1? If 2.1 is not backward compatible with 2.0 we
will have
three version which are not compatible which makes upgrading
a real pain
:-(

Jann

On 2/7/08, Jann Forrer <jann.forrerid.uzh.ch> wrote:
> I think we should try to avoid breaking backwards
compatibility or if we
>  really have to, a migration path should be described.
>  What should we propose to people still using 1.2.
Upgrading to 2.0 or
>  wait for 2.1? If 2.1 is not backward compatible with
2.0 we will have
>  three version which are not compatible which makes
upgrading a real pain
>  :-(
>  Jann

Let Lenya 1.2 users upgrade to Lenya 1.3 since complete
backwards-compatibility was a goal. Lenya 1.3 should be
usable in a
few weeks.  The high-level feature list reads just like
2.0's What's
New.  The largest strategic difference is no Java in
Modules, but that
cannot be a problem since 1.2 did not have that feature. 
Just copy
Lenya 1.2 Publications to the pubs directory.  The
implementations is
very different from Lenya 2, but a normal user will not
care.  The new
features become available after a simple conversion to the
new
datastore.  (Jorn will love that Areas have been removed.)

This frees Lenya 2 development to focus on new features for
new installations.

solprovider

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribelenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helplenya.apache.org

On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 03:44 -0500, solproviderapache.org wrote:
> On 2/7/08, Jann Forrer <jann.forrerid.uzh.ch> wrote:
> > I think we should try to avoid breaking backwards
compatibility or if we
> >  really have to, a migration path should be
described.
> >  What should we propose to people still using 1.2.
Upgrading to 2.0 or
> >  wait for 2.1? If 2.1 is not backward compatible
with 2.0 we will have
> >  three version which are not compatible which
makes upgrading a real pain
> >  :-(
> >  Jann
> 
> Let Lenya 1.2 users upgrade to Lenya 1.3 since
complete
> backwards-compatibility was a goal. 

We cannot recommend that, since 1.3 till now has no
community around it,
meaning we DO NOT and CAN NOT support it officially ATM. 

You are the only one that supports it. If we want to
recommend 1.3 then
we need to build a community around it.

salu2
-- 
Thorsten Scherler                                
thorsten.at.apache.org
Open Source Java                      consulting, training
and solutions


------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribelenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helplenya.apache.org

Jann Forrer wrote:
> Andreas Hartmann wrote:
>> Hi Lenya devs,
>>
>> does it already make sense to open a branch for 2.0
and start 2.1-dev in
>> the trunk?
>>
>> I'm working on some quite fundamental changes to
the menubar generation
>> (migrating from XSP to static XML), and really
leveraging the benefits
>> without cluttering the sitemaps with selectors
would require to break
>> backwards compatibility. Updating wouldn't be much
difficult for users,
>> though. I'm also not quite sure yet if all of the
changes make sense, so
>> I don't want to commit them to the stable branch.
>>
> 
> I think we should try to avoid breaking backwards
compatibility or if we
> really have to, a migration path should be described.

i agree we shouldn't break stuff lightly, but if we can get
rid of
ugliness *and* the update is trivial even for heavily
customized sites,
i think the benefit outweighs the disadvantages.

andreas, let me know when the changes are ready, i'll try
and move my
production server over and then i can summarize to the list
how much
work was involved.


-- 
Jörn Nettingsmeier

"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000
lines of code."
  - Ken Thompson.

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribelenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helplenya.apache.org

solproviderapache.org wrote:
> On 2/7/08, Jann Forrer <jann.forrerid.uzh.ch> wrote:
>> I think we should try to avoid breaking backwards
compatibility or if we
>>  really have to, a migration path should be
described.
>>  What should we propose to people still using 1.2.
Upgrading to 2.0 or
>>  wait for 2.1? If 2.1 is not backward compatible
with 2.0 we will have
>>  three version which are not compatible which makes
upgrading a real pain
>>  :-(
>>  Jann
> 
> Let Lenya 1.2 users upgrade to Lenya 1.3 since
complete
> backwards-compatibility was a goal. Lenya 1.3 should be
usable in a
> few weeks.  The high-level feature list reads just like
2.0's What's
> New.  The largest strategic difference is no Java in
Modules, but that
> cannot be a problem since 1.2 did not have that
feature.  Just copy
> Lenya 1.2 Publications to the pubs directory.  The
implementations is
> very different from Lenya 2, but a normal user will not
care.  The new
> features become available after a simple conversion to
the new
> datastore.  (Jorn will love that Areas have been
removed.)
> 
> This frees Lenya 2 development to focus on new features
for new installations.

now that your work on 1.3 has gained momentum, we should
really discuss
what to do with it to take the best of both worlds into
lenya 3.0... the
current situation is somewhat unfortunate - i'm sure there
are many good
ideas in 1.3, but i have no time to track it, and i guess
the same is
true for the other 2.0 devs.
it would be really great if you gave a 1.3 presentation at a
lenya
hackathon one of these days - got any vacation plans to old
europe?

if not, we should dedicate an IRC session to that topic
eventually...


-- 
Jörn Nettingsmeier

"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000
lines of code."
  - Ken Thompson.

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribelenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helplenya.apache.org

Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> solproviderapache.org wrote:
>> On 2/7/08, Jann Forrer <jann.forrerid.uzh.ch> wrote:
>>> I think we should try to avoid breaking
backwards compatibility or if we
>>>  really have to, a migration path should be
described.
>>>  What should we propose to people still using
1.2. Upgrading to 2.0 or
>>>  wait for 2.1? If 2.1 is not backward
compatible with 2.0 we will have
>>>  three version which are not compatible which
makes upgrading a real pain
>>>  :-(
>>>  Jann
>> Let Lenya 1.2 users upgrade to Lenya 1.3 since
complete
>> backwards-compatibility was a goal. Lenya 1.3
should be usable in a
>> few weeks.  The high-level feature list reads just
like 2.0's What's
>> New.  The largest strategic difference is no Java
in Modules, but that
>> cannot be a problem since 1.2 did not have that
feature.  Just copy
>> Lenya 1.2 Publications to the pubs directory.  The
implementations is
>> very different from Lenya 2, but a normal user will
not care.  The new
>> features become available after a simple conversion
to the new
>> datastore.  (Jorn will love that Areas have been
removed.)
>>
>> This frees Lenya 2 development to focus on new
features for new installations.
> 
> now that your work on 1.3 has gained momentum, we
should really discuss
> what to do with it to take the best of both worlds into
lenya 3.0... the
> current situation is somewhat unfortunate - i'm sure
there are many good
> ideas in 1.3, but i have no time to track it, and i
guess the same is
> true for the other 2.0 devs.
> it would be really great if you gave a 1.3 presentation
at a lenya
> hackathon one of these days - got any vacation plans to
old europe?
>
That would be nice 
I like the idae of the 1.3 backward compatiblity but
changing from 1.2
to 1.3 is risky because solprovider is the only dev working
on this
version. And if you want to move from 1.3 to 2.x you will
probably have
the same problems as changing from 1.2. to 2.x.

Jann