On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Dan Peterson wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Evan Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Responses below. Again, I don't feel too strongly ("slavish" may be a
slightly strong characterization of my points), but I'm not seeing
big
benefits in the short term to major releases independent of spec
revisions.
The cost of maintaining a release can easily outweigh the benefits of
releasing a new architecture earlier, when there is likely a spec rev
coming
up in a few months. I wouldn't tie down the versions but I do see
benefits
in starting with Opensocial Spec Version == Shindig version.
Still happy to support the will of the group on this one - just
wanted to
make sure that these points were heard.
As stated earlier in this thread, my stance is similar to Evan's --
I worry
that we're going to confuse people by *starting off* with a Shindig
version
that is inflated ahead of the version of the OpenSocial spec. I
agree that
we'd probably not want to hold the Shindig version to be similar to
the
OpenSocial spec version in perpetuity.
I was one of the people originally suggesting to keep the versions
tied to the spec. I appreciate the arguments against that suggestion,
and I'd ultimately be happy either way.
But I think the *worst* option would be to start out tied to the spec
version and then drift away from it. That would be hopelessly confusing.
Thanks,
--
Tim Moore
Atlassian Plugin Developer
