Hi. On 9/5/07, Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 5, 2007, at 6:06 PM, Asiri Rathnayake wrote: > > Hi Erin, > > On 9/5/07, Erin Schnabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > This may be silly, but would it be clearer if the XEclipse versioning > > contained some indication of the XWiki base required? To me, XEclipse > > v1.0 somehow suggests to me that it should be able to run on XWiki > > 1.0.. . which of course is not true. Might be good to have the prereq > > explicit in the versioning.. maybe? > > > Sounds like a good idea to me... > > Let's see what others think... > > > I like to start new modules at 1.0. Sounds logical since they're new. > > The release cycle for XEclipse doesn't have to be the same as XE and thus > their versions shouldn't be aligned. For example we're going to release > 1.0M2 of XEclipse in about one week (right Asiri/Tharindu? :)). >
We'll work on it from tomorrow onwards (came back from home today) ... :) - Asiri This doesn't match XWiki 1.1RC2 nor does it match XWiki 1.2M1 and it would > be a pity to have to wait for 1.2M1 before releasing it. > > What we could do is have a version like 1.0-1.1 (<xeclipse>-<XE>) but that > sounds way way too complex. > > I think I prefer simply documenting it on xwiki.org and inside XEclipse > itself. It should check the XE version it's connecting to and tell the user > if it's not compatible with it IMO. > > WDYT? > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > >
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
