Ian McNicoll wrote: > Hi Thomas, I was suggesting the RM version be recorded when the > archetype is officially published or revisioned and re-published. This > is the only time when an archetype author can be expected to take some > account of the underlying RM when designing or revising the model. It > is not a perfect solution but it gives some estimation of the RM > version that the author was working against when designing the > archetype. The archetype tools could automatically record the RM > version whenever an archetype lifecyle transitions to published or has > its version/revision updated. * but then the previous releases that the archetype may or may not work with are lost, if it is being update to indicate the latest one it works with. And an archetype might not be touched for a long time (due to being perfect ;-) and so would never have this information updated. So I can't see how it is in any way trustworthy when written in the archetype.
- thomas *
