I don't feel strongly but want to answer the questions raised in this and the previous email.
To Kevin's point about having 3 major architectural revisions during the 0.8 timeframe - we didn't bother making a release branch for any of them, because there's no demand for a new version of Shindig that doesn't meet new external APIs. One of the big reasons we release is to have a stable version matching the latest from the spec. More below... On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Henning P. Schmiedehausen < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Evan Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >OpenSocial <-> Shindig > >0.8.1 1.0.23 > >0.9.0 1.1.7 > >0.9.1 1.2.23 > >0.9.1 1.3.3 > >1.0.0 1.4.7 > >... > >2.0.0 3.5.8 > > > Servlet/JSP Spec Apache Tomcat version > 2.5/2.1 6.0.18 > 2.4/2.0 5.5.27 > 2.3/1.2 4.1.37 > 2.2/1.1 3.3.2 (archived) This is good to see as an example. I do think that the velocity of the OpenSocial spec will make this a bit more cumbersome - JSP has had a release every two years, and even if we slow down, with point revisions we'll probably have 2 per year for a while to come. > > > That is verbatim from http://tomcat.apache.org/ > > Last time I looked, Tomcat was doing fine. > > >This may be a little different than other cases because our major Shindig > >revisions will be very closely tied to spec revisions for a while to come. > I > >don't think this is often the case. > > What makes you think that this is the case? The velocity of the spec means there's much less incentive to create a release branch between spec revisions. > > > Ciao > Henning > > -- > Henning P. Schmiedehausen - Palo Alto, California, U.S.A. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] "We're Germans and we use Unix. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's a combination of two demographic groups > known to have no sense of humour whatsoever." > -- Hanno Mueller, de.comp.os.unix.programming >
