Definitely the latter, IMHO. -----Original Message----- From: Glen Daniels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:06 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: 1.1 pre-release (please test)
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 > >
