On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Jeff Johnston <[email protected]> wrote:

> Talked to Andrew who is at FSOSS.  He agrees with the 0.10.0 solution and
> is ok with back-leveling the nightly updates.  We cannot go 1.0.0 while we
> are in Incubation.
>
> Francois, I can make these changes unless you have already started.
>
>
Be my guest :-)




> -- Jeff J.
>
>
> On 10/28/2011 01:34 PM, Francois Chouinard wrote:
>
>> 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]
>> <mailto:[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] 
>> <mailto:linuxtools-dev@**eclipse.org<[email protected]>
>> >
>>
>>     > > 
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/**mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-**dev<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev>
>>     >
>>     > ______________________________**_________________
>>     > linuxtools-dev mailing list
>>     > [email protected] 
>> <mailto:linuxtools-dev@**eclipse.org<[email protected]>
>> >
>>
>>     > 
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/**mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-**dev<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev>
>>    ______________________________**_________________
>>    linuxtools-dev mailing list
>>    [email protected] 
>> <mailto:linuxtools-dev@**eclipse.org<[email protected]>
>> >
>>    
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/**mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-**dev<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Francois
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> linuxtools-dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/**mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-**dev<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev>
>>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> linuxtools-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://dev.eclipse.org/**mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-**dev<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev>
>



-- 
Francois
_______________________________________________
linuxtools-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev

Reply via email to