> 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.
I was ready a little while back but I found it hard to attract comment: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/castle-project-devel/browse_thread/thread/612486486921b690 I think it's cos Windsor is inherently more interesting than Pagination ;) On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
