Hear hear.. I was hoping this would happen. Is it expected, then, that IP versioning will be something like <CP major>.<CP minor>[.<IP version>.<build>]?
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Foord Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:55 AM To: Discussion of IronPython Subject: Re: [IronPython] IronPython 2.1 Renamed to IronPython 2.6 Slide wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Dave Fugate <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Some of you may have noticed that IronPython bugs on CodePlex previously >> assigned to the "2.1" release are now assigned to "2.6". We've simply >> renamed the 2.1 release of IronPython to 2.6 to reflect upon the fact that >> the next major release of IronPython will be largely compatible with CPython >> 2.6. All details about IP 2.1 that were previously discussed on Harry >> Pierson's blog (see >> http://devhawk.net/2008/07/17/IronPython+Post+20+Roadmap.aspx) still apply >> to IP 2.6. We're doing this simple name change to help eliminate confusion >> about IronPython's compatibility with various CPython and Jython releases. >> >> >> >> David Fugate >> >> Microsoft - IronPython >> >> > > > Personally, I think this is a great move! > +1 from me too. :-) Michael > Thanks, > > slide > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com > -- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
