Re: Adding new version numbers to bugzilla
INFRA-2886 has been done by infra. Simon On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 08:41:56PM +0200, Simon Pepping wrote: I registered two JIRA issues: INFRA-2868: Add new version number for XMLGraphicsCommons project in Bugzilla: version 1.4 INFRA-2886: Add new version number for FOP project in Bugzilla: version 1.0 Can someone (Christian) take these actions? -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
Re: Adding new version numbers to bugzilla
Simon Pepping schrieb: INFRA-2886 has been done by infra. Simon On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 08:41:56PM +0200, Simon Pepping wrote: I registered two JIRA issues: INFRA-2868: Add new version number for XMLGraphicsCommons project in Bugzilla: version 1.4 INFRA-2886: Add new version number for FOP project in Bugzilla: version 1.0 Can someone (Christian) take these actions? Done. The comment on this issue indicates that ou have now karma too ;-) Christian
Re: Adding new version numbers to bugzilla
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:58:25AM +0200, Christian Geisert wrote: Simon Pepping schrieb: INFRA-2886 has been done by infra. Simon On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 08:41:56PM +0200, Simon Pepping wrote: I registered two JIRA issues: INFRA-2868: Add new version number for XMLGraphicsCommons project in Bugzilla: version 1.4 INFRA-2886: Add new version number for FOP project in Bugzilla: version 1.0 Can someone (Christian) take these actions? Done. The comment on this issue indicates that ou have now karma too ;-) Thanks. I noticed, and I used it to change 1.0dev to 1.1dev. Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
Adding new version numbers to bugzilla
I registered two JIRA issues: INFRA-2868: Add new version number for XMLGraphicsCommons project in Bugzilla: version 1.4 INFRA-2886: Add new version number for FOP project in Bugzilla: version 1.0 Can someone (Christian) take these actions? Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
Re: Version numbers
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 01:41:23PM +0100, Simon Pepping wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:53:41AM +0100, Christian Geisert wrote: Jeremias Maerki schrieb: Not necessarily. We've called it 0.90alpha1. I'd assume we'd have a 0.90beta or directly a 0.90 (final) first. But I guess that's open for I thought we do it like 0.91alpha2, ... 0.93 beta ... 1.0 discussion. I don't care too much about it. What do others think? I see now better what Christian means: number the releases 0.91, 0.92 etc. and append an indicator of our judgment of quality. That would make 0.91alpha, 0.92beta etc., and it makes sense to me. Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
Re: Version numbers
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:53:41AM +0100, Christian Geisert wrote: Jeremias Maerki schrieb: Not necessarily. We've called it 0.90alpha1. I'd assume we'd have a 0.90beta or directly a 0.90 (final) first. But I guess that's open for I thought we do it like 0.91alpha2, ... 0.93 beta ... 1.0 discussion. I don't care too much about it. What do others think? Upping two different numbers at the same time is not logical. I go with Jeremias' idea, but I do not care too much either. Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
Version numbers (was Re: svn commit: r348747 - /xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/build.xml)
Jeremias Maerki schrieb: Not necessarily. We've called it 0.90alpha1. I'd assume we'd have a 0.90beta or directly a 0.90 (final) first. But I guess that's open for I thought we do it like 0.91alpha2, ... 0.93 beta ... 1.0 discussion. I don't care too much about it. What do others think? Christian
