Oh and... 1.0 shouldn't be released without proper documentation... What's the version number of the PR? I'd vote for 0.10 :)
- David > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David Zülke > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 2:31 PM > To: 'Agavi Development' > Subject: RE: [agavi-dev] Roadmaps.. Points.. padunkadunk > > Yeah that's fine. I'd like to have a pluggable ExecutionFilter in there, > too, tho, but that isn't much work, I can do it this afternoon. > > 1.0 should definitely ship with an overhauled or alternative config file > format, I think. So that we at least have the default vanilla parser > everyone and their mother can use to parse whatever config file and have > it > cached/compiled. > > - David > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On > > Behalf Of Mike Vincent > > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 5:54 AM > > To: Agavi Development > > Subject: [agavi-dev] Roadmaps.. Points.. padunkadunk > > > > We've got quite a bit of ground covered since the initial 0.9.0 release, > > eh? :) > > > > Prior to announcing the project we pondered wether to release it as > > 1.0 or not and eventually decided that it wouldnt be right calling it > > 1.0 because there was so much we'd yet to finish. One of the goals for > > announcing the project was to try and get some other people involved > > so that we could increase the momentum on the road to a real good > > solid release we could be proud to stamp a 1.0 on. > > > > We had some ideas, but the overwhelming thing was that 1.0 would be > > that it would include unit tests to provide as close 100% coverage as > > we possibly could for the framework internals and we would attempt to > > make the tests as robust as possible. > > > > We're still a ways yet from acheiving this goal, yet we've covered a > > lot of ground. So I'm wondering what you fellas think about making > > another point release, perhaps after Bob has had some time to finish > > up his work on logging, David on his singleton model changes, etc.. > > > > Which brings up a related topic, the @since tags on new code. :) How > > should we best handle this? Would it be best practice to always add a > > point to the latest release, if it happens we dont roll out the point > > it should be easy enough to run our hack script on the repository to > > change those cases to the next full release version (or just leave it > > as is). This is what I'm thinking. I'm sure I'm as guilty as anyone > > about comitting new code after the 0.9.0 release that's taged @since > > 0.9.0. :) > > > > Anyway.. holla back. > > > > -Mike > > _______________________________________________ > > agavi-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://labworkz.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agavi-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > agavi-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://labworkz.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agavi-dev _______________________________________________ agavi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://labworkz.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agavi-dev
