Agreed. Once we get started with projects having regular releases it will be smoother. It is just up to someone to start :)
Does anyone else (including other projects leaders) have an opinion on where we should store the downloads (sf.net is good because we don't need to worry about FTP access to the cp site). Also what is everyone's opinion on version numbers for the next releases. On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Gauthier Segay <[email protected]>wrote: > > That was a point when separating pagination from MR, I would like AR > (and more) interact with it > > On Feb 15, 12:18 pm, Ken Egozi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Pagination can be used from any client, not necessarily MR. > > could even be used in non-web scenarios > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Partly because Windsor is more interesting :). The other part is that > I'm > > > not too sure how many people would use a pagination release without > > > MonoRail. So it is more likely they will just use MR and Pagination off > the > > > trunk until they are both together as a release. > > > > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Colin Ramsay <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > >> > 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/t. > .. > > > > >> 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=c. > .. > > > > >> > 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/thr. > .. > > > > >> >> >> 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 > > > > > -- > > > Jono > > > > -- > > Ken Egozi. > http://www.kenegozi.com/bloghttp://www.delver.comhttp://www.musicglue.comhttp://www.castleproject.orghttp://www.gotfriends.co.il > > > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
