Valid point Markus,
I think we should only use that for point point releases and only for
fixes, not new functionality.
New functionality = new major and/or minor version
Krzysztof
On 2010-02-13 13:41, Markus Zywitza wrote:
This results in the Apache Versioning Syndrom, having 2.2 deprecating
2.0 after a couple of years and some 70 patch releases that all some
new functionality...
However, it is practical, so +1 from me.
2010/2/13 John Simons<[email protected]>:
There has been a few threads about people not being able to easily
(without having to recompile the whole thing) swap assemblies with the
latest ones.
http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel/browse_thread/thread/9c4ecb75d81c1bf7/
Jono, proposed the following:
"So maybe the alternative is to not increment the assembly version but
the
file version for hotfix/patch releases (i.e. 2.0.1, 2.0.2). Which
means that
you could just drop in a patch release without worrying about updating
dependant libraries, this then ensures the user is using compatible
versions
and allows us to fix bugs that don't break public interfaces."
Which I think is a good idea. +1
What does everyone else think about this?
Cheers
John
--
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.
--
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.
