So is this worth reburning the 1.1 kits for, or can we simply point to the info (and where to get the new versions) on our web pages?
--G > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 1:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: 1.1 pre-release (please test) > > > 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 > >
