On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >> >> Richard S. Hall wrote: >> >>> >>> Hmmm. >>> >>> +1 for core. >>> >>> Essentially, +1 for compendium, but I am not sure since it now depends >>> on Foundation 1.2.0, but I don't think any changes were made to >>> foundation, so I am not sure we should be doing a release on it. (Sorry, >>> I didn't notice that you did last time.) Of course, it is not the end of >>> the world if we release it, since it gives them all the same version >>> number, but I don't believe it has changed at all. >>> >>> Otherwise, I noticed that we/I forgot to update the copyright dates in >>> the NOTICE file, I committed that. See? It sucks having those in there. >>> ;-) We should also update to the improved NOTICE file format. >>> >>> Well, what should we do about foundation 1.2.0 and compendium's >>> dependency on it? >>> >>> >> >> :) well, actually I could have asked before doing it this way... >> anyways, i think it's nicer to have all three modules with the same >> version that's why I included the foundation module (although there >> were no changes). So I think we should just go with these :) >> >> If we don't want to release foundation 1.2.0 now, I can recut a >> compendium 1.2.1 release - no problem. >> > > Well, we can let other people chime in. I don't have a strong opinion on it.
I don't think it matters much. They are just stub classes anyways. I don't like doing a release only for the version but I don't think we have to stop this vote because of this either. regards, Karl > -> richard > >> Carsten >> >> >> > -- Karl Pauls [EMAIL PROTECTED]
