[Cosmo] A couple big ideas: cosmo release and server project merge

[Brian Moseley]

On 2/3/06, Lisa Dusseault <lisa at osafoundation.org> wrote:

> Chandler 0.7 will probably rely on Cosmo 0.4, although there's a
> small chance Cosmo 0.3 (or 0.3.x) would happen to have all the
> features Chandler 0.7 needed as well as all the bug fixes.  But
> releasing 0.3 in Feb won't delay integration testing or any other
> Chandler work -- it's just a renumbering as far as Chandler is
> concerned.  You can think of a Feb release as "Half of Cosmo 0.3" but
> calling it 1.5 would be even more confusing! :)  You'll get the other
> half of Cosmo 0.3 in another few months but we'll be calling it 0.4.

or we could release cosmo 0.3 through 0.25 before chandler 0.7 is
ready. i think the best thing to do is to articulate in detail the
functionality cosmo doesn't have right now but needs to have in order
to ship chandler 0.7 so that we can add those things to our list. then
create a plan for integration testing and we'll make sure to get you
the features you need according to that plan, whatever the cosmo
version number might happen to be.

> By release we mean send it out to the world, as well as upgrade Cosmo
> Demo.  Foxcloud would probably consider upgrading too.  Who knows,
> maybe some other site will pick up Cosmo too.  And yes Aparna is an
> important contributor to this decision (she was there when it was
> first brought up).

i wouldn't assume that cosmo-demo will always update to the latest
cosmo release. cosmo-demo is there to service chandler sharing, which
is why cosmo-demo is such a misleading name ;) if we release two dozen
features between now and chandler 0.7 release, there's no particular
reason why cosmo-demo should upgrade to include them.