On 25.08.2010 20:57, Christopher Schultz wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 8/25/2010 11:15 AM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Subject: Re: Tomcat Version Numbers
why not have a tag progression that
> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
> Subject: Re: Tomcat Version Numbers
> Okay. Does that mean that:
> [DIR] v6.0.2-alpha/ 2006-11-16 00:02-
> [DIR] v6.0.2-beta/2006-11-16 00:02-
> [DIR] v6.0.2/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 8/25/2010 11:15 AM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
>> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
>> Subject: Re: Tomcat Version Numbers
>
>> why not have a tag progression that looks like this:
>
On 25/08/2010 16:23, Christopher Schultz wrote:
> For those who never read http://tomcat.apache.org/whichversion.html, or
> don't understand it (btw: that page says 7.0.0 is the current version of
> the 7.0.x versions), downloading the highest version number available
> (7.0.2) might not be such a
> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
> Subject: Re: Tomcat Version Numbers
> there's a 6.0.0-alpha, and then a 6.0.0, unqualified.
> Does that mean that 6.0.0 was stable -- at least after
> the alpha stage?
Yes. (I missed the unmarked 6.0.0 le
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter,
On 8/25/2010 10:30 AM, Peter Crowther wrote:
> On 25 August 2010 15:23, Christopher Schultz
> wrote:
>
>> Again, this is partly because I feel a certain sense of order which
>> requires releases to be X.0.0.
>>
>> Why? And by "release" do you
On 25 August 2010 15:23, Christopher Schultz
wrote:
> Again, this is partly because I feel a certain sense of order which
> requires releases to be X.0.0.
>
> Why? And by "release" do you mean "stable, production-quality releases
that we'll stake our reputations on" (in which case almost every x.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 8/20/2010 12:36 PM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
>> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
>> Subject: Tomcat Version Numbers
>>
>> What was the first version of TC 6.0 that was considered stable?
>
> Looks like 6.0.
On 20/08/2010 17:36, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
>> Given that, there's no telling which 7.0 version will be the
>> first stable one, right?
>
> Mark seems to be close to recommending stable, but yes, there's no telling.
Ultimately it is a community decision. The more folks that use the betas
an
Len Popp wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:26, Christopher Schultz
wrote:
It's not that I
don't get it... it's that I have a deep-seated need for the release
version to be called 7.0.0 for some reason.
Call me cynical, but I naturally assume that a major new version will
have more bugs (no ma
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:26, Christopher Schultz
wrote:
> It's not that I
> don't get it... it's that I have a deep-seated need for the release
> version to be called 7.0.0 for some reason.
Call me cynical, but I naturally assume that a major new version will
have more bugs (no matter how much
> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
> Subject: Tomcat Version Numbers
>
> Will the TC 7.x versions numbers increase like 7.0.3, 7.0.4,
> and then at some point it will be considered "stable"?
Yes.
> That sounds like Tomcat 7.0.0 is not actually a release version,
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
