0.8.4.0 is the next 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: Upcoming
0.8.3
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 set a fixed version in
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
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
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
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 release
-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 commentary last night. Here are my responses in no particular
order.
I would still like to get
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
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
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 releases, now
I John,
I never had any issues with these tests, can you possible debug the tests to
see what's actually happening ?
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
11 matches
Mail list logo