I think it might be best hosting the downloads on sourceforge. This would mean more people need write access to it. The main reason is that there is actually heaps of bandwidth currently used for RC3. January 2009 had 42.9 GB downloaded and I would expect that once there are more releases that is only going to increase. Sourceforge has the infrastructure to handle the load.
http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=124416&ugn=castleproject&type=prdownload&mode=alltime&package_id=0 I'd expect the package for MR to include AR and MK. For example, because the current MR release might not yet be using the latest released AR. I can see having a full castle package of the current releases that are all compatible which you can just download and be done with it a really good idea. When the first person is ready to release a project we will need to work out what needs to go on the castle web site. On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Colin Ramsay <[email protected]> wrote: > > We also need to decide/find out where downloads are going to be hosted. > > My other slight concern is how to createa synchronised download for > people who want a "full suite" of Castle stuff. For example, if we all > release separately then a user would have to download all the > Components separately, then MR, then Windsor, etc, etc. I know this > isn't specific to Windsor but I wanted to raise it anyway. > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Can we make a decision about version numbers for the next release. > > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> :) > >> > >> We'll I was close, it was about going with DP 2.1 instead of 2.0. I'd > >> expect you'd want to follow the same convention for the rest of the > >> projects. However, maybe not. > >> > >> These are 2 quotes from a discussion about releasing DP 2.0: > >> > >>> AFAIC DP2 was released on the last RC. So you're looking into 2.1 or > >>> 2.0.1 > >> > >>> I'd vote for 2.1 > >>> 2.0 is very stable. > >> > >> > >> > >> > http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel/browse_thread/thread/aab177d5ee9c5c58/f8ed184bd6739de0?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=dynamicproxy+2.1#f8ed184bd6739de0 > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:26 AM, hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I have no recollection of saying that :-) > >>> > >>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> >> - increase the version number (1.0.4.revision) to help distinctify > >>> >> RC3+ > >>> >> from RTM+ > >>> > > >>> > I remember Hammett mentioning at some point he suggested just jumping > >>> > to 1.1 > >>> > to make it really clear, since 1.0 has basically been a 2 year > rolling > >>> > release off the trunk. What do you think? > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Jono > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Cheers, > >>> hammett > >>> http://hammett.castleproject.org/ > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > -- > > Jono > > > > > > > > -- > > Jono > > > > > > > > > > > -- Jono --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
