On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Alin Dreghiciu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that 1.2 is a good version as this should signal to people > that there are new features added, where 1.0.5 to me sounds like a bug > fixing release.
+1 > But why is not 1.1? Because it follows the odd number for development > / even number for release? Yes. Thats what we agreed on a while ago. regards, Karl > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 3:09 AM, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I propose that we call the next Felix release 1.2, since it will be the >> first release to include some sort of support for fragments. The goal will >> be to have this release come out around the end of August or beginning of >> September, but the sooner the better. >> >> Along with partial fragment support, I think we should be able to target the >> following outstanding issues for inclusion in the release: >> >> * FELIX-102 - A patch submitted by Alin to support singleton bundles. >> * FELIX-650 - A related patch submitted by Alin for parsing the >> bundle symbolic name header parameters. >> * FELIX-577 - A patch submitted by Guillaume to improve bundle: URL >> handling. >> * FELIX-582 - Modify Felix URLs to return better "last modified" >> information. >> >> These all seem do-able. I think we could also consider this one, since I >> have it working in my workspace: >> >> * FELIX-595 - Update Felix to use OSGi R4.1 API. >> >> Thoughts on all of this? >> >> -> richard >> > > > > -- > Alin Dreghiciu > http://www.ops4j.org - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open > Participation Software. > http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java - Domain Driven Development. > http://malaysia.jayway.net - New Energy for Projects - Great People > working on Great Projects at Great Places > -- Karl Pauls [EMAIL PROTECTED]
