> Sounds great. Although, since we depend heavily on Avalon, and they
> went and rewrote their API, we'd be getting Gump failures on 2.1 for
> some time... do you think it's worth tagging the branch in we use in
> Avalon, or is there a better way to support this?
Actually, once we tag v2.1 it is probably time to update our code to conform
to the current Avalon API. That had been Peter's plan. I'll see if we can
find out what it takes, or we can wait for Stephen to get back from
vacation, and ask if he'd please do the deed.
> I believe 2.1 is just a stabilization, although others may want to do more
with it.
I'll start a Wiki page for people wanting to contribute ideas/requests. I
think that a number of small things will likely happen in James v2.1 until
James v3 is stable enough.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
