> I would personally have less problems with making the 2.1 DOM the dependency for 2.4.1 instead of 2.0.
I definitely recommend DOM 2.1 over 2.0. A few serious problems with the Visual Studio builds were fixed. Steve On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 10:40 +0200, Paul Melis wrote: > Morning Robert, > > Robert Osfield wrote: > > >On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Paul Melis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Yes the fix was in r8282, osg 2.4 was released around r8238. This sounds > >>like a good candidate for inclusion in 2.4.1. > >> > >> > > > >This was done after the moving to supporting DOM 2.1, so it's one of > >sticky ones, is moving to DOM 2.1 a bug fix... > > > > > Looking a bit closer at it now, it seems r8282 was about DOM 1.3 -> 2.x, > not just 2.0 -> 2.1. At least judging from the log message. The collada > website doesn't really help, although they do have a list of API changes > this only starts half a year after 1.3.0 was released. > > But this definitely seems like too big a step for inclusion in 2.4.1. I > would personally have less problems with making the 2.1 DOM the > dependency for 2.4.1 instead of 2.0. > > >Plugin upgrades are binary compatible of course as they don't have any > >public interface for apps to get incompatible with, so it does make > >them easier to slot in to stable maintenance releases. But then a DOM > >2.1 based dae plugin will require a different external dependency > >so... > > > >As I mentioned on the other thread one has to use your discretion of > >this type of stuff, weigh up the costs/benefits. > > > Yep... > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > osg-users mailing list > osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org > _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
