Hi, I have the same thoughts as Andy and infact this is precisely why I backed '0.95-incubator'.
- Venkat On 9/11/06, Andrew Borley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not trying to open any worm-cans, but having 1.0 at the start of the name makes it look like it's a 1.0 release, when in actuality it's still a milestone release - is this the effect we're looking for? Is the code at a 1.0 level of quality, stability and functionality? Or would people say this is beta or even alpha code at the moment? Cheers Andy On 9/11/06, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 for 1.0-incubator-M2 > > On 10/09/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Any more thoughts on this? Most popular so far is 1.0-incubator-M2 > > -- > > Jeremy > > > > On Sep 8, 2006, at 10:17 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote: > > > > > Before publishing artifacts to the snapshot repo I need to make > > > sure all the versions contain "incubator" which means updating all > > > the POMs. I would like to change this to the version of this next > > > release and so would like input on what that should be: > > > > > > [ ] 1.0-M2-incubator > > > [ ] 1.0-alpha-incubator > > > [ ] 1.0-incubator > > > [ ] 0.95-incubator > > > [ ] 0.2-incubator > > > [ ] something else ________ > > > > > > Please respond one way or another :-) > > > -- > > > Jeremy > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Best Regards > Kelvin Goodson > >
