> [snip] > >> What would the version number of this release be? 1.1.0 (beta) or > >> 1.0.17 (beta)? > > > >It depends on how significant we feel the changes over 1.0.16 are. > >If we also add the iems mentioned above, 1.1.0 looks a good version > >number. > > Yeah, I'll also investigate making the directory-browsing feature of > the WebdavServlet more flexible: letting the user define a directory- > browsing-template URL that should point to a JSP that handles the > (mostly) HTML stuff. then, there'd be 3 versions of the JSP: one using > just standard Java against the Slide/WebDAV API (essentially moving > the HTML display code out of WebdavServlet.java), the two others using > the Struts and JSTL taglib, respectively. > > That change would go into HEAD as well as SLIDE_1_0, since I > personally think it's a feature a lot of people might want from Slide.
Yes, that is obviously a very nice user-oriented feature. > >> [And btw, why's Slide the only Jakarta-project using > >> that versioning scheme? ;o)] > > > >It's Apache 2 versioning number. I liked it, proposed it a while ago, > >and it was accepted. Quite frankly I expected it to become used by > >other projects at Apache, but it didn't happen. > > I don't remember if I was already involved at that time, but I find > the numbering scheme a bit confusing, to be honest :P. Especially in > being unclear about alpha/beta/stable status. I started realizing this numbering scheme may be a good idea during the development process of Tomcat 4 (where there was the "M"-series, followed by the "Beta" series, and then by the "RC" series); I felt it was more consistent. I wouldn't change the numbering scheme in the current branch (otherwise, it would really start confusing people IMO). We could change it for future releases, of course. Remy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
