Sorry Denis I overlooked the main part of your last post.
> ...
> Shouldn't major version be used for changes that have major
> (prositive or negative...) impacts for the end-user?
> Such as a change that could break existing script, as the migration
> to htmlunit was, or a change that brings new possibilities.
yes: in this case may positive changes
> That way, I could as an end-user better decide if/when I want to
> upgrade the webtest version.
> A change to a minor version could be done pretty much anytime,
> whereas refactoring and testing amay have to be planned along with a
> change to a major version.
> I would see the use of Ant 1.7, java 1.5, xpath 2.0 or successful
> XmlHttpRequest as possible reasons for a webtest 3.
XmlHttpRequest as it is already successfull ;-) The problems are located in
other areas.
> Which changes make this release worth of a 3.0 instead of a 2.2?
the main point is the correct usage of Ant which has (only?) good effects:
- no problem anymore with ${} properties that are evaluated too early
- far smaller memory consumption
> If this release is a 3.0, how do we mark the next important change?
4.0 ;-)
Marc.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/WebTest-next-release%3A-scope-and-time--tf3413136.html#a9588917
Sent from the WebTest mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
WebTest mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.canoo.com/mailman/listinfo/webtest
