-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > Tags imply that they are supported.
Really? I've never encountered that before. Maybe against a V1_0_0 tage, but then you just tell someone 'nope, not supported.' M1 means 'milestone one,' right? Another thing to consider is people who build against the idiosyncrasies of a particular tagged version. Making the tag harder to find/check out does them no service. This sort of thing was (is?) seen a lot with the Apache APR code. Things like Subversion and the Apache httpd code are released with specific versions of APR expected. So what if they're obsolete? Make the tag harder to find and it's harder to use. One situation in which I could see this being relevant is a company wanting to incorporate code. They might want to pick a particular point in time in order to do their 'pedigree' checking of the IP issues. So it's not just the meaning to Geronimo that's relevant here, but the meaning of the tags to consumers/users of the code. If the only reason to do anything with the old tags is the concern that someone might consider them as implying support, I'd suggest finding a way to negate that impression that doesn't involve affecting the history or ease of finding it. Just my US$0.02, and I'm not a coder on Geronimo. - -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQ2aNWJrNPMCpn3XdAQLg/wQAi53JmLVNxuBE3trPGCwA7M23mldNXQXa GPM2sdzAE/EO8I9cUVNpJkw9D5y3MKeDQXQ9oScoSkRZuClFq7Ht9JzvJzZeiNoS +r+Zxg3Z2k8wMH/sdLGw5PWCl+V8/l1IVTARGUWMm5j0YIJLC0cf8CGLOnd3C/Ha jeLOlkCsj/o= =ZIn+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
