Scott McCrory wrote:
No objections - "release early and release often..." But are you sure it's just a 0.61 release? I'd recommend 0.7, as most non-programmers (and some bit twiddlers too) consider anything prior to 1.0 not mature enough for production, and I think Acegi is a lot further along that that...I just did a quick Google for version number guidelines. I found quite a few references to Apache's Portable Runtime Project versioning guidelines at http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html. These seem reasonable, but if there is some other guideline people would prefer to follow, please provide a URL. Alternatively, if people are happy with the Apache guidelines, please send a +1 to the list.
Scott
The current CVS HEAD is directly compatible with 0.6. So people recognise the new release is directly compatible with 0.6 deployments, I favor tagging it 0.61. Or, if we decide to adopt the Apache guidelines above, the new release would be tagged 0.6.1.
The 1.0 issue has come up in the forum and been sighted as a reason for not using the project. I can't identify any foreseeable additional features that would require architectural changes, and as stability is pretty good, we should seriously think about whether the next release after this one should be 1.0. The one major issue I would like to resolve before we tag it 1.0 is moving to a Maven-based build rather than Ant, just in case this migration requires changes in the classes contained in each artifact.
Comments welcome.
Ben
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170 Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php _______________________________________________ Acegisecurity-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/acegisecurity-developer
