On 24.11.2003 15:36, Geoff Howard wrote:
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
Should be no problem, though it might be better to have real releases. Ralph Goers on the users list mentioned that it is always a problem to grap the sources of these packages from CVS. The below updated versions are no real releases, but only recent tagged versions in the CVS. So there is no source tar gz downloadable from dist directory.
There was a frustrated post on avalon-dev this AM regarding excalibur releases. The comment (which I haven't had time to respond to) was that the one trying to go through the release process was getting no help, and that no one (including us) cared about excalibur releases anymore.
Geoff
To be honest I don't care about Excalibur. But I read the mail after you wrote the above: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=106966850800002&r=1&w=2. Can anybody comment on this? Should it stay as it is, i.e. we update only what we need, esp. when we found a bug and want to fix it? I guess "that's life" for "commons" libraries.
But I bet you (or someone at least) cares whether we are using a released or cvs version of, say, excalibur sourceresolve - or store, etc. There is critical functionality which is continually non-released which we've decided we don't want.
TBH, I also interpreted the original complaint to include ECM, which I for some reason had in my head someone was trying to create a new release of for 2.1.x.
Are we really the only ones using these packages? Have the others gone away from Avalon?
Geoff
