Actually, the copy of commons-discovery that we're currently using is neither fish nor foul -- it's a nightly snapshot that postdates the 0.1 release and predates the 0.2 release. In view of those facts, I'd be more comfortable with a release that's been blessed as opposed to one whose origins have been lost in the hoary mists of time (see previous thread on this subject -- no need to rehash).
-----Original Message----- From: Kellogg, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 1.1 pre-release (please test) Agreed. Both of these common jars have been available in official form since early April. I just wanted to raise the issue for awareness purposes. Thanks, Rick -----Original Message----- From: Steve Loughran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 1.1 pre-release (please test) Kellogg, Richard wrote: > I just noticed we are shipping older releases of commons-discovery.jar(0.1) and commons-logging.jar(1.0.2) when newer releases (0.2/1.0.3) are available. Food for thought. > that's because QA testing new versions is something you dont want to do in a released version; taking on the updates is something to do earlier in the release cycle
