Ok, I need some more feedback on this.
We have quite a few issues fixed for 2.5.2
http://github.com/castleproject/Castle.Windsor/blob/master/Changes.txt
(at least two more pending so it's almost 15 in Windsor, plus a few in
Core).
We also have four breaking changes:
http://github.com/castleproject/Castle.Windsor/blob/master/BreakingChanges.txt
As such I'm torn apart between making it seamless to update and making
it explicit that this is a updated version as compared to 2.5.1
so what do you guys/gals think? Should we just update the file version
number, or update complete version number?
On 18/10/2010 8:08 PM, Johannes Gustafsson wrote:
Just a question regarding version numbering. If 2.5.2 is just a bugfix
release, wouldn't it be better to keep the version at 2.5.1 or at
least just update the file version and not assembly version?
When 2.5.1 was released I had to recompile all my dependencies,
(NHibernate, NServicebus and some other stuff) which is a real pain if
it's just a bugfix release and no breaking changes.
Kind regards,
Johannes
2010/10/15 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
OpenWrap handles versioning. NuPack is just a fancy download tool
On 15/10/2010 1:04 PM, John Simons wrote:
How does openwrap fixes this problem?
And how about Nupack?
On Oct 15, 1:55 pm, Krzysztof
Koźmic<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
We would need open wrap for this.
sent from my HTC Desire
On 15/10/2010 12:52 PM, "John
Simons"<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
But even if you do that you still have the problem u
mentioned above:
"Problem is not too many people download betas, so we
likely wouldn't
catch that anyway."
which btw I agree 100%.
Which makes me think, What is the point of releasing
alpha, beta, rc,
if the users are not going to try them anyway?
Maybe the solution is to have continuous releases, doesn't
Ayende do
that for NHProf, and Wordpress
(seehttp://toni.org/2010/05/19/in-praise-of-continuous-deployment-the-wor.
<http://toni.org/2010/05/19/in-praise-of-continuous-deployment-the-wor.>..
)
But that would require us to sort out our release
procedures, as
you've pointed out on another thread :)
Anyway just my 2 cents!
Cheers
John
On Oct 15, 8:35 am, Krzysztof
Koźmic<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
I agree about one thing though - pushing out "alpha"
releases much
sooner for next release, pr...
2010/10/13 Krzysztof
Koźmic<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Hi,
since there were some issues discovered in
Windsor 2.5.1 (see issue
tracker)
so...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
the Google Groups
"Castle Project Developmen...
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:castle-project-devel%[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.
--
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.
