looking at the three top-level excalibur instrument projects - instrument, instrument-client, instrument-manager - it seems they could
do with a bit of a consolidation
uhuh. Leif's also on it, I think.
As for back-compatibility, my understanding is that 1.2 has not been released yet. Is that correct?
yes. If there's a file at
http://www.apache.org/dist/
(for now, existing releases are @ http://www.apache.org/dist/avalon/)
it's a release, otherwise its not.
Anybody know of current users of 1.2?
I dunno. But there's no official release, no cvs tag, so no need to worry. There is no 1.2, just lousy bookkeeping in svn.
On a more general note, I'd like to move towards a version convention that uses -dev postfix for any version in current development and
set exact version only for realeased versions.
Thoughts?
standards are good. Don't really care whether its -dev, -alpha, -beta, -gamma, -..... I think -dev is becoming more and more common; problem with it may be the difficulty in having multiple -dev prereleases. Maybe...
-dev for stuff in CVS (never distributed to any repo)
-alpha1, -alpha2, -alpha$n -beta1, -beta$n, -rc$1, -rc$n
for prereleases (might be distributed)'' no suffix for final releases (official signed distros)
...would be nice to get some standards written up on the wiki.
I also like the idea of going back to less independent versions (pico does this now, with a common project.(properties|xml) for several subprojects, it works handy dandy). Maybe according to the restructured repo you proposed?
- LSD
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apache Excalibur Project -- URL: http://excalibur.apache.org/
