Hi Craig, I agree and also vote for yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Some additional remarks: - There is no need to create a branch 3.2.1 as long as there is no parallel activity for JDO 3.3. So for we could continue on the main branch. - About the typo: sorry my bad! - We should also update the schema descriptor and the document type descriptor in chapters 11 and 18 of the specification as described in JDO-806. I plan to work on updating the .jdo, .orm, .jdoconfig, .jdoquery files to use the apache URL. Regards Michael Hi, These questions need immediate answers: 1. Should we plan for a release 3.2.1 and create a new branch for 3.2.1 (both db-jdo and db-jdo-site) for issue JDO-806? 2. Should we use 3.2 as the xsd and dtd version numbers since there are no changes planned for them in 3.2.1? 3. Should we use https in the xsd and dtd headers? 4. Should we fix the typo in the date of the specification on the front page? My proposal is yes, yes, yes, and yes. Craig Craig L Russell javadog....@gmail.com<mailto:javadog....@gmail.com> 1220 University Ave San Jose, CA 95126 -- Michael Bouschen akquinet tech@spree GmbH Bülowstraße 66 • D-10783 Berlin Tel: +49 30 235520-33 Fax: +49 30 217520-12 E-Mail: michael.bousc...@akquinet.de<mailto:michael.bousc...@akquinet.de> Web: www.akquinet.de<http://www.akquinet.de/> I Geschäftsführung: Martin Weber, Dr. Torsten Fink, Heinz Wilming Amtsgericht Berlin HRB 86780 • USt.-Id. Nr.: DE 225 964 680 [Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/akquinet> [XING]<https://www.xing.com/companies/akquinetag> [LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/akquinet-ag> [Twitter]<https://twitter.com/akquinet>
