I added the PDF dates because there was a fair amount of confusion about which version of the PDF was actually current. I think it's a good idea because the documentation changes so frequently, but is so rarely published. But I'm not dogmatic about it. My main thing is that I'd like it to be clear somehow when the documentation is updated - so when we say RTFM, it's actually clear what FM we mean :-)
Jeff Butler
On 8/16/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nah,
#1 I've uploaded the DTDs now
#2 Let's fix it. That's what Betas are for. :-) Only the build number will change, and only the manifest files use that particular version number, so no biggie.
I've updated the build script so that it uses the same build number for the filename as the manifest files, so that it's easier to spot this error in the future. Makes me wonder why I didn't do that long ago! :-/
#3 ...as for the PDF dates...do we really need those? Seems like extra maintenance.
Cheers,
Clinton
On 8/16/06, Jeff Butler < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:+1 for beta (woo hoo!)Issues I've noticed so far:1. The new DTDs did not get copied to the web site2. The version number in version.properties did not get updated, so the JARs are still tagged as version 2.1.73. The update dates for the PDFs did not get updated on the web pageI can deal with #1 and #3 later this evening if no one beats me to it, but I think we're stuck with #2 :(Jeff Butler
On 8/16/06, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
PMC Members,
You've no doubt seen the 2.2.0 beta release email. Unless you find any significant problems with the build, please now vote for iBATIS for Java 2.2.0 to be promoted to General Availabilty status.
This vote will close Friday, August 18th.
Best regards,
Clinton
