[VOTE] use Cocoon-2.1

[David Crossley]

We intend to "update" the version of Cocoon used by Forrest
to be Cocoon-2.1 branch.

Please vote.

The period ends on 2008-09-04 at 00:00 hours GMT:
http://tinyurl.com/6ldvrc (to timeanddate.com).

Note that the actual merge of the branch can be done when
we feel it is ready. This vote is about the chosen direction.

[1] Apache Forrest project guidelines - Decision making
http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#decision

[2] [Proposal] use Cocoon-2.1
http://marc.info/?t=121947859800002

[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-955

[David Crossley]

David Crossley wrote:

> We intend to "update" the version of Cocoon used by Forrest
> to be Cocoon-2.1 branch.
>
> Please vote.
>
> The period ends on 2008-09-04 at 00:00 hours GMT:
> http://tinyurl.com/6ldvrc (to timeanddate.com).
>
> Note that the actual merge of the branch can be done when
> we feel it is ready. This vote is about the chosen direction.
>
> [1] Apache Forrest project guidelines - Decision making
> http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#decision
>
> [2] [Proposal] use Cocoon-2.1
> http://marc.info/?t=121947859800002
>
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-955

Woops, forgot to specify the type of approval.
I suppose that the action is close to "Adoption of new codebase"
http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#actions
http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#approvals

So it would be "2/3 majority" of those PMC members that
vote during the time period.

-David

[Thorsten Scherler]

On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 12:44 +1000, David Crossley wrote:
> We intend to "update" the version of Cocoon used by Forrest
> to be Cocoon-2.1 branch.
>
> Please vote.

+1

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

[David Crossley]

David Crossley wrote:
> We intend to "update" the version of Cocoon used by Forrest
> to be Cocoon-2.1 branch.
>
> Please vote.

+1

-David

[David Crossley]

David Crossley wrote:

> David Crossley wrote:
> > We intend to "update" the version of Cocoon used by Forrest
> > to be Cocoon-2.1 branch.
> >
> > Please vote.
> >
> > The period ends on 2008-09-04 at 00:00 hours GMT:
> > http://tinyurl.com/6ldvrc (to timeanddate.com).
> >
> > Note that the actual merge of the branch can be done when
> > we feel it is ready. This vote is about the chosen direction.
> >
> > [1] Apache Forrest project guidelines - Decision making
> > http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#decision
> >
> > [2] [Proposal] use Cocoon-2.1
> > http://marc.info/?t=121947859800002
> >
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-955
>
> Woops, forgot to specify the type of approval.
> I suppose that the action is close to "Adoption of new codebase"
> http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#actions
> http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#approvals
>
> So it would be "2/3 majority" of those PMC members that
> vote during the time period.

Also, we encourage all developers to express their opinion,
not just committers.

-David

[Sjur Moshagen]

Den 28. aug. 2008 kl. 05.44 skrev David Crossley:

> We intend to "update" the version of Cocoon used by Forrest
> to be Cocoon-2.1 branch.
>
> Please vote.

+1

Sjur

[Tim Williams]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:44 PM, David Crossley <crossley@...> wrote:
> We intend to "update" the version of Cocoon used by Forrest
> to be Cocoon-2.1 branch.
>
> Please vote.

I reckon I've missed discussion on why 2.1.x vs the released 2.2?
It's not intuitive why we would "upgrade" to an outdated version.  I
saw FOR-1016 but I didn't see what the show-stopper was.  A search
turned up this[1] thread with Thorsten concerned about "pass-through"
- but I'm not sure what that means.

I reckon I'm +0 on doing this simple to be out of our current
predicament but think because of how non-intuitive it is, it'd be
worth clearly stating why we are not going with the more obvious
upgrade path.

--tim

[1] - http://www.nabble.com/memory-leaks-in-forrest-td18743789.html

[David Crossley]

Tim Williams wrote:

> David Crossley wrote:
> > We intend to "update" the version of Cocoon used by Forrest
> > to be Cocoon-2.1 branch.
> >
> > Please vote.
>
> I reckon I've missed discussion on why 2.1.x vs the released 2.2?
> It's not intuitive why we would "upgrade" to an outdated version.  I
> saw FOR-1016 but I didn't see what the show-stopper was.  A search
> turned up this[1] thread with Thorsten concerned about "pass-through"
> - but I'm not sure what that means.

That is the ability that lets our sitemaps work.
If a match is not found then it passes through to the
next sitemap. That ability was in our old Cocoon-2.2 trunk,
and we were not sure it was backported to Cocoon-2.1 branch.
It was and it works for us.

As for the background, please see the recent "Proposal" thread.
It directs you to
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-1017
and to the old discussion:
http://marc.info/?t=116969435600001

-David

> I reckon I'm +0 on doing this simple to be out of our current
> predicament but think because of how non-intuitive it is, it'd be
> worth clearly stating why we are not going with the more obvious
> upgrade path.
>
> --tim
>
> [1] - http://www.nabble.com/memory-leaks-in-forrest-td18743789.html

[Tim Williams]

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 5:59 AM, David Crossley <crossley@...> wrote:

> Tim Williams wrote:
>> David Crossley wrote:
>> > We intend to "update" the version of Cocoon used by Forrest
>> > to be Cocoon-2.1 branch.
>> >
>> > Please vote.
>>
>> I reckon I've missed discussion on why 2.1.x vs the released 2.2?
>> It's not intuitive why we would "upgrade" to an outdated version.  I
>> saw FOR-1016 but I didn't see what the show-stopper was.  A search
>> turned up this[1] thread with Thorsten concerned about "pass-through"
>> - but I'm not sure what that means.
>
> That is the ability that lets our sitemaps work.
> If a match is not found then it passes through to the
> next sitemap. That ability was in our old Cocoon-2.2 trunk,
> and we were not sure it was backported to Cocoon-2.1 branch.
> It was and it works for us.
>
> As for the background, please see the recent "Proposal" thread.
> It directs you to
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-1017
> and to the old discussion:
> http://marc.info/?t=116969435600001

Thanks David, I've read this and still don't see why *not* 2.2.  From
all that discussion the only problem I see is the CLI - Thorsten is
currently shopping for a Member to champion his droids lab ATM that
could likely be suitable for that.  I assume the other advantages to
upgrading (i.e. XMLFileModule updates, etc.) are applicable to both
versions anyway.

I'm trusting that it makes sense, but I suggest again that because 2.2
is the more obvious upgrade path, we'd do well to state explicitly
what's keeping us from it and essentially "reverting" to 2.1.  As I
understand it, we've been using a variant of 2.2 for over 3 years now
and the next version of Forrest would potentially have "upgrade to
2.1" listed in the changes.  I personally think that's just odd enough
to deserve something more explicit in the voting process than long
references to discussions that weren't exactly fully conclusive.
--tim

[Thorsten Scherler-3]

On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 06:32 -0400, Tim Williams wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 5:59 AM, David Crossley <crossley@...> wrote:
> > Tim Williams wrote:
> >> David Crossley wrote:
> >> > We intend to "update" the version of Cocoon used by Forrest
> >> > to be Cocoon-2.1 branch.
> >> >
> >> > Please vote.
> >>
> >> I reckon I've missed discussion on why 2.1.x vs the released 2.2?
> >> It's not intuitive why we would "upgrade" to an outdated version.  I
> >> saw FOR-1016 but I didn't see what the show-stopper was.  A search
> >> turned up this[1] thread with Thorsten concerned about "pass-through"
> >> - but I'm not sure what that means.
> >
> > That is the ability that lets our sitemaps work.
> > If a match is not found then it passes through to the
> > next sitemap. That ability was in our old Cocoon-2.2 trunk,
> > and we were not sure it was backported to Cocoon-2.1 branch.
> > It was and it works for us.

This ability to "look into" different sitemaps is not anymore in 2.2.
Meaning our whole concept of mounting a sitemap will not work in 2.2.
Which leaves us to rethink and rewrite every single line of our current
code.

For example the whole plugin infrastructure is based on the
"pass-through" mount ability. In cocoon-2.2 if you mount a sitemap you
will not come back to the one that issued the mount. Meaning the plugin
would need to implement a "re-mount" to the principal sitemap which is
highly infinite loop prone.

"Updating" - yeah you are right technically we are downgrading our
cocoon version - to cocoon-2.1.x let us reuse everything (even the CLI).
Still it is a big enhancement to the 3 year old version of cocoon we
have now.

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

[David Crossley]

Tim Williams wrote:

> David Crossley wrote:
> > Tim Williams wrote:
> >> David Crossley wrote:
> >> >
> >> > We intend to "update" the version of Cocoon used by Forrest
> >> > to be Cocoon-2.1 branch.
> >> >
> >> > Please vote.
> >>
> >> I reckon I've missed discussion on why 2.1.x vs the released 2.2?
> >> It's not intuitive why we would "upgrade" to an outdated version.  I
> >> saw FOR-1016 but I didn't see what the show-stopper was.  A search
> >> turned up this[1] thread with Thorsten concerned about "pass-through"
> >> - but I'm not sure what that means.
> >
> > That is the ability that lets our sitemaps work.
> > If a match is not found then it passes through to the
> > next sitemap. That ability was in our old Cocoon-2.2 trunk,
> > and we were not sure it was backported to Cocoon-2.1 branch.
> > It was and it works for us.
> >
> > As for the background, please see the recent "Proposal" thread.
> > It directs you to
> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-1017
> > and to the old discussion:
> > http://marc.info/?t=116969435600001
>
> Thanks David, I've read this and still don't see why *not* 2.2.

Because no-one at Forrest is doing the work towards
getting that to happen.

Cocoon-2.1 is closer to the old version of Cocoon-2.2
that we are using, than we are to the current Cocoon-2.2 head.

We must get out of this limbo. It is damaging us in
various ways.

e.g. Consider what would happen if a major security flaw was
found in Cocoon. They could release a fix. However we
would not be able to fix Forrest, and something drastic
would need to happen.

As we said at the beginning of this current proposal,
this move does not stop us later going to the new Cocoon-2.2
or even something else.

> From all that discussion the only problem I see is the CLI - Thorsten is
> currently shopping for a Member to champion his droids lab ATM that
> could likely be suitable for that.

Maybe. There are a lot of abilities that it will need.

As far as i know, upgrading to 2.2 is more than just the CLI.
If it was easy then surely one us would at least show
that it is operational in the 'forrest run' mode.
Also it has moved on 18 months since those threads.
Some abilities are now gone.

>  I assume the other advantages to
> upgrading (i.e. XMLFileModule updates, etc.) are applicable to both
> versions anyway.

Yes, i would expect so.

> I'm trusting that it makes sense, but I suggest again that because 2.2
> is the more obvious upgrade path, we'd do well to state explicitly
> what's keeping us from it and essentially "reverting" to 2.1.  As I
> understand it, we've been using a variant of 2.2 for over 3 years now
> and the next version of Forrest would potentially have "upgrade to
> 2.1" listed in the changes.

Yes. Well we have lots of words in these threads to
compile into some encouraging statement.

>  I personally think that's just odd enough
> to deserve something more explicit in the voting process than long
> references to discussions that weren't exactly fully conclusive.

Yes one of us should have tried to better summarise
the past discussion and the current state.

Thanks for expressing your concerns. That is very important.

-David

[David Crossley]

David Crossley wrote:

> David Crossley wrote:
> >
> > [1] Apache Forrest project guidelines - Decision making
> > http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#decision
> >
> > [2] [Proposal] use Cocoon-2.1
> > http://marc.info/?t=121947859800002
> >
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-955
>
> Woops, forgot to specify the type of approval.
> I suppose that the action is close to "Adoption of new codebase"
> http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#actions
> http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#approvals
>
> So it would be "2/3 majority" of those PMC members that
> vote during the time period.

I should elaborate so that people don't need to read
between the lines of those Guidelines.

If too many people vote "+0" then the vote is likely
to fail. Please be definite with your opinion.

-David

[David Crossley]

I am away for the weekend, starting now.
Will catch up later.

-David

[gavin-105]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Crossley [mailto:crossley@...]
> Sent: Thursday, 28 August 2008 1:07 PM
> To: dev@...
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] use Cocoon-2.1
>
> David Crossley wrote:
> > We intend to "update" the version of Cocoon used by Forrest
> > to be Cocoon-2.1 branch.
> >
> > Please vote.

+1

Gav...

> >
> > The period ends on 2008-09-04 at 00:00 hours GMT:
> > http://tinyurl.com/6ldvrc (to timeanddate.com).
> >
> > Note that the actual merge of the branch can be done when
> > we feel it is ready. This vote is about the chosen direction.
> >
> > [1] Apache Forrest project guidelines - Decision making
> > http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#decision
> >
> > [2] [Proposal] use Cocoon-2.1
> > http://marc.info/?t=121947859800002
> >
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-955
>
> Woops, forgot to specify the type of approval.
> I suppose that the action is close to "Adoption of new codebase"
> http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#actions
> http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#approvals
>
> So it would be "2/3 majority" of those PMC members that
> vote during the time period.
>
> -David
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.9/1637 - Release Date: 8/27/2008
> 7:01 AM

[David Crossley]

Reminder ... 48 hours to go.

-David

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:44:13PM +1000, David Crossley wrote:

> We intend to "update" the version of Cocoon used by Forrest
> to be Cocoon-2.1 branch.
>
> Please vote.
>
> The period ends on 2008-09-04 at 00:00 hours GMT:
> http://tinyurl.com/6ldvrc (to timeanddate.com).
>
> Note that the actual merge of the branch can be done when
> we feel it is ready. This vote is about the chosen direction.
>
> [1] Apache Forrest project guidelines - Decision making
> http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#decision
>
> [2] [Proposal] use Cocoon-2.1
> http://marc.info/?t=121947859800002
>
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-955

[David Crossley]

David Crossley wrote:

> David Crossley wrote:
> >
> > We intend to "update" the version of Cocoon used by Forrest
> > to be Cocoon-2.1 branch.
> >
> > Please vote.
> >
> > The period ends on 2008-09-04 at 00:00 hours GMT:
> > http://tinyurl.com/6ldvrc (to timeanddate.com).
> >
> > Note that the actual merge of the branch can be done when
> > we feel it is ready. This vote is about the chosen direction.
> >
> > [1] Apache Forrest project guidelines - Decision making
> > http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#decision
> >
> > [2] [Proposal] use Cocoon-2.1
> > http://marc.info/?t=121947859800002
> >
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-955
>
> Woops, forgot to specify the type of approval.
> I suppose that the action is close to "Adoption of new codebase"
> http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#actions
> http://forrest.apache.org/guidelines.html#approvals
>
> So it would be "2/3 majority" of those PMC members that
> vote during the time period.

I allowed the vote to run for a further six days.
There was no further expression of support and there
was no followup to the answers about the concerns raised.

So it is time to tally up.

According to our guidelines, the proposal is affirmed
with 2/3 majority of votes cast being +1.

committers/PMC members: +1 (4 votes) and +0 (1 vote)
developers: no votes

-David