xt build and so forth.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: John Barstow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 3:57 PM
To: 'Gert Driesen'; 'Nant-Developers (E-mail)'
Cc: 'Ian MacLean'
Subject: RE: Upcoming 0.8.4? release (was RE: [nant-dev] FW:
Ian MacLean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gert Driesen wrote:
>
>>John,
>>
>>We should .. euhm .. could ... (never say should, if there's a slight chance
>>that Ian is gonna read the mail .. LOL) also move to a fixed version number
>>for rel
One common practice (recommend by Microsoft gurus) is to increment your
version number immediately _after_ a release, not right before a
release. This means that you have plenty of time to debug any issues
related to that version number change. I assume that's why the version
is 0.8.3 in CVS righ
I like this idea. It keeps momentum going - ie regular releases. And we
don't get in the "just one more feature" situation.
Ian
Matt:
Is it alright to do a couple of pre-0.8.3 builds before the real one (at
least one)?
In light of this, and Gert's request to fit more features in before
Erv Walter wrote:
> It seems kind of odd to suggest that the next version of NAnt
> should be 0.8.4, doesn't it? The newest release version is 0.8.2, why
> are we skipping 0.8.3?
It's mainly because the CVS version has been marked as 0.8.3 for quite some
time now, and it would be clearer to incr
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Nant-Developers
(E-mail)'"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: 'Ian MacLean' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Upcoming 0.8.4? release (was RE: [nant-dev] FW: Upcoming
0.8.3
>release)
>Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:57:28 +120
27; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Nant-Developers (E-mail)'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: 'Ian MacLean' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Upcoming 0.8.4? release (was RE: [nant-dev] FW: Upcoming 0.8.3
release)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:57:28 +1200
Lots of comme
Lots of commentary last night. Here are my responses in no particular
order.
> I would still like to get a few things in the 0.8.3 release : upgrade
to a
> new version of #cvslib, perhaps upgrade to a yet-to-be-released
version of
> log4net (which now uses the same assembly name for all framework
Matt:
>Is it alright to do a couple of pre-0.8.3 builds before the real one (at
>least one)?
In light of this, and Gert's request to fit more features in before
releasing, I wonder if NAnt might not benefit from doing time-boxed,
instead of feature-boxed releases. If the project were to releas
Is it alright to do a couple of pre-0.8.3 builds before the real one (at
least one)?
I found that for the last release, people are more likely to test and
send bug reports for a pre- build than a development build.
Matt.
John Barstow wrote:
I'm hoping to do an 0.8.3 release sometime next we
I'll just ignore that part of that directed at me. Yep we *should* use a
fixed version number. Thats part of the reason we moved to a common
assemblyinfo.cs file in the first place isn't it ?
It was intended as a joke, but you know that right ...
yeah - I figured.
Ian
---
Gert Driesen wrote:
John,
We should .. euhm .. could ... (never say should, if there's a slight chance
that Ian is gonna read the mail .. LOL) also move to a fixed version number
for releases, now that all assemblies are built using a common
assemblyinfo.cs file.
I'll just ignore that part of tha
inion. Ian, what do you suggest ?
"should" we do this ?
Gert
- Original Message -
From: "John Barstow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nant-Developers (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:14 AM
Subject: [nant-dev] FW: Upcomin
CTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:14 AM
Subject: [nant-dev] FW: Upcoming 0.8.3 release
> I'm hoping to do an 0.8.3 release sometime next weekend. Before we can
> release, however, we'll need a clean build.
> The following tests FAIL when attempting to build from the latest CVS
I'm hoping to do an 0.8.3 release sometime next weekend. Before we can
release, however, we'll need a clean build.
The following tests FAIL when attempting to build from the latest CVS.
If no-one fixes them before I wake up, I'll probably send in a patch or
two. Note that they're ALL failing on t
15 matches
Mail list logo
