I can provide an S3 account to put them there.1.5 ?

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to