Ben Alex wrote:
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...
Scott
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.
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.
+1 for Apache guidelines
-------------------------------------------------------
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