I guess it doesn't hurt to mark them as 0.10 for now. Nothing prevents us from updating before Juno if we are happy with the APIs.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Alexander Kurtakov <[email protected]>wrote: > On 20:25:35 Friday 28 October 2011 Jeff Johnston wrote: > > Actually, I just realized I am mistaken regarding the next release part > > of this. Our 0.9.1 release will be an Indigo update and built from the > > stable-0.9 branch, not master. So, Alex, are we fine marking our Juno > > milestone builds as 1.0.0 or should we have waited until our final > > milestone? > > Personally, I would prefer if we mark them as 0.10 until we are really sure > we > can sign by these API. > What others think? > > Alex > > > > > -- Jeff J. > > > > On 10/28/2011 12:50 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote: > > > Hi Francois, > > > > > > In working on the Juno build, I noticed that you bumped up Profiling, > > > Callgraph, and Valgrind to 1.0.0 as well as the main pom.xml as part of > > > following the releng wiki. 1.0.0 is a special version number. The > actual > > > next release should be 0.9.1. > > > > > > Alex, can we down-grade these on the nightly update site? It would mean > > > any user that managed to update from there would have to uninstall and > > > re-update to see any updates in the next bit. I can rebuild this > > > afternoon. > > > > > > -- Jeff J. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > linuxtools-dev mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > linuxtools-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev > _______________________________________________ > linuxtools-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev > -- Francois
_______________________________________________ linuxtools-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev
