Re: [DISCUSS] Retiring 2.1.x ? (Was: Re: Future of the Cocoon project)

I do agree and would be +1 for retiring 2.1.x as well.

If you want any traction within Cocoon project, you'll need at least
focus. And here my vote would clearly go to 2.2/ 2.3 (even though I
never adapted it myself due to the build system issues we always had
with it and despite all the fond memories of 2.1).

Regards,
J=C3=B6rg

On 01.12.23 19:26, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> I'd be +1 to retire 2.1.x
>
> Even if I have fond memories of it, as it was my first major apache
> project.
>
> However it's grown quite old technically and refreshing things would be
> a huge effort. Some of the jvm versions needed are no longer available
> and I failed to even build it on 1.8.
>
> Don't think it's worth the effort :-(
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Gesendet von Outlook f=C3=BCr Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* C=C3=A9dric Damioli <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Friday, December 1, 2023 7:06:08 PM
> *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Retiring 2.1.x ? (Was: Re: Future of the Cocoon
> project)
>
> Le 01/12/2023 =C3=A0 18:13, C=C3=A9dric Damioli a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
>>
>> We'd like to know whether you'd prefer:
>> [ ] retiring Cocoon 2.1.x
>> [ ] reviving/maintaining Cocoon 2.1.x, meaning that you volunteer to
>> be somehow involved
>>
>
> I'd vote +/-0 here ...
> Definitively the toughest for me ...
> I still heavily use Cocoon 2.1 core, but I recognize that it's an very
> old piece of software, and that maintaining it here would demand more
> and more work.
>
> Perhaps it could be wiser to also let it go, and then fork the core
> elsewhere if needed with a new build system, without all block stuff, ..=
.
> I'm curious to see what will others say about it.
>
> C=C3=A9dric
>