On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Ken Egozi <[email protected]> wrote:
> well actually I don't give a rat's arse about this. > who cares? > > I'd say that it should be up to project leads. > > DP is 2.0 for quite some time, so I guess it'd be kept like that > AR can be 1.0 as Markus wishes (and there isn't much API difference from > RC3 anyway) > MR is *way* different than RC3 so a 2.0 does make sense > Windsor is with quite the same xml API, but a with a huge bust of Fluent > and binsor, so 1.5 could make sense, but 1.0 (cuz it backwards compat) and > 2.0 (cuz it's way cooler now) could also work. > > I say => let the PMC decide between the two options: > 1. a relese no. for all projects > or > 2. letting project leads decide. > I think Ken is on to something here. We keep forgetting each project is now released separately, so why not just make the leads pick the next version number as Ken suggested. 1.0 makes sense for just about everything except a few projects which have changed quite a lot. And new projects that weren't around in RC3 (e.g. Pagination and Scheduler components) can start at 1.0. Because the version number really doesn't matter that much it might just be best getting the leads to decide what makes sense for the project and be done with it. > We are putting way too much effort on that. I'd rather all that energy be > put into better things. VS wizards for MR anyone? > I tried that angle before, no one offered :) -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
