Windsor 2.5.2 release
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Krzysztof Koźmic
Oct 13, 2010, 9:14:56 PM10/13/10
to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com, castle-pro...@googlegroups.com
Hi,
since there were some issues discovered in Windsor 2.5.1 (see issue tracker) some of them quite serious, I'm thinking about releasing a 2.5.2 release sometime soon with fixes for that.
So that's just a heads up. If you have any other issues with the release and want them fixed now is the time to speak up.
Krzysztof
since there were some issues discovered in Windsor 2.5.1 (see issue tracker) some of them quite serious, I'm thinking about releasing a 2.5.2 release sometime soon with fixes for that.
So that's just a heads up. If you have any other issues with the release and want them fixed now is the time to speak up.
Krzysztof
Henry Conceição
Oct 14, 2010, 11:31:55 AM10/14/10
to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com
Maybe we should a have longer alpha/beta testing periods.
Cheers,
Henry Conceição
2010/10/13 Krzysztof Koźmic <krzyszto...@gmail.com>:
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Castle Project Development List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> castle-project-d...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
>
Krzysztof Koźmic
Oct 14, 2010, 5:17:57 PM10/14/10
to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com
Problem is not too many people download betas, so we likely wouldn't catch that anyway.
sent from my HTC Desire
On 15/10/2010 1:32 AM, "Henry Conceição" <henry.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe we should a have longer alpha/beta testing periods.
Cheers,
Henry Conceição
2010/10/13 Krzysztof Koźmic <krzyszto...@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> since there were some issues discovered in Windsor 2.5.1 (see issue tracker)
> some of the...
Krzysztof Koźmic
Oct 14, 2010, 5:35:13 PM10/14/10
to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com
I agree about one thing though - pushing out "alpha" releases much
sooner for next release, pretty much with each bigger chunk of
functionality created.
sooner for next release, pretty much with each bigger chunk of
functionality created.
John Simons
Oct 14, 2010, 10:52:27 PM10/14/10
to Castle Project Development List
But even if you do that you still have the problem u mentioned above:
Which makes me think, What is the point of releasing alpha, beta, rc,
if the users are not going to try them anyway?
Maybe the solution is to have continuous releases, doesn't Ayende do
that for NHProf, and Wordpress (see
http://toni.org/2010/05/19/in-praise-of-continuous-deployment-the-wordpress-com-story/)
But that would require us to sort out our release procedures, as
you've pointed out on another thread :)
Anyway just my 2 cents!
Cheers
John
On Oct 15, 8:35 am, Krzysztof Koźmic <krzysztof.koz...@gmail.com>
wrote:
"Problem is not too many people download betas, so we likely wouldn't
catch that anyway."
which btw I agree 100%.
catch that anyway."
Which makes me think, What is the point of releasing alpha, beta, rc,
if the users are not going to try them anyway?
Maybe the solution is to have continuous releases, doesn't Ayende do
that for NHProf, and Wordpress (see
http://toni.org/2010/05/19/in-praise-of-continuous-deployment-the-wordpress-com-story/)
But that would require us to sort out our release procedures, as
you've pointed out on another thread :)
Anyway just my 2 cents!
Cheers
John
On Oct 15, 8:35 am, Krzysztof Koźmic <krzysztof.koz...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I agree about one thing though - pushing out "alpha" releases much
> sooner for next release, pretty much with each bigger chunk of
> functionality created.
>
> On 15/10/2010 1:31 AM, Henry Conceição wrote:
>
> > Maybe we should a have longer alpha/beta testing periods.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Henry Conceição
>
> > 2010/10/13 Krzysztof Koźmic<krzysztof.koz...@gmail.com>:
> sooner for next release, pretty much with each bigger chunk of
> functionality created.
>
> On 15/10/2010 1:31 AM, Henry Conceição wrote:
>
> > Maybe we should a have longer alpha/beta testing periods.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Henry Conceição
>
Krzysztof Koźmic
Oct 14, 2010, 10:55:06 PM10/14/10
to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com
We would need open wrap for this.
sent from my HTC Desire
On 15/10/2010 12:52 PM, "John Simons" <johnsi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
But even if you do that you still have the problem u mentioned above:
"Problem is not too many people download betas, so we likely wouldn't
which btw I agree 100%.
catch that anyway."
Which makes me think, What is the point of releasing alpha, beta, rc,
if the users are not going to try them anyway?
Maybe the solution is to have continuous releases, doesn't Ayende do
that for NHProf, and Wordpress (see
http://toni.org/2010/05/19/in-praise-of-continuous-deployment-the-wordpress-com-story/)
But that would require us to sort out our release procedures, as
you've pointed out on another thread :)
Anyway just my 2 cents!
Cheers
John
On Oct 15, 8:35 am, Krzysztof Koźmic <krzysztof.koz...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I agree about one thing though - pushing out "alpha" releases much
> sooner for next release, pr...
> > 2010/10/13 Krzysztof Koźmic<krzysztof.koz...@gmail.com>:
> >> Hi,
>
> >> since there were some issues discovered in Windsor 2.5.1 (see issue tracker)
> >> so...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Developmen...
Simon
Oct 14, 2010, 11:00:55 PM10/14/10
to Castle Project Development List
Agree with john.
More frequent smaller releases all of the "production releases".
Although this does not help with the case where you have major
refactorings...
On Oct 15, 1:52 pm, John Simons <johnsimons...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> But even if you do that you still have the problem u mentioned above:
> "Problem is not too many people download betas, so we likely wouldn't
> catch that anyway."
> which btw I agree 100%.
>
> Which makes me think, What is the point of releasing alpha, beta, rc,
> if the users are not going to try them anyway?
>
> Maybe the solution is to have continuous releases, doesn't Ayende do
> that for NHProf, and Wordpress (seehttp://toni.org/2010/05/19/in-praise-of-continuous-deployment-the-wor...)
More frequent smaller releases all of the "production releases".
Although this does not help with the case where you have major
refactorings...
On Oct 15, 1:52 pm, John Simons <johnsimons...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> But even if you do that you still have the problem u mentioned above:
> "Problem is not too many people download betas, so we likely wouldn't
> catch that anyway."
> which btw I agree 100%.
>
> Which makes me think, What is the point of releasing alpha, beta, rc,
> if the users are not going to try them anyway?
>
> Maybe the solution is to have continuous releases, doesn't Ayende do
John Simons
Oct 14, 2010, 11:04:48 PM10/14/10
to Castle Project Development List
How does openwrap fixes this problem?
And how about Nupack?
On Oct 15, 1:55 pm, Krzysztof Koźmic <krzysztof.koz...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> )
And how about Nupack?
On Oct 15, 1:55 pm, Krzysztof Koźmic <krzysztof.koz...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> We would need open wrap for this.
>
> sent from my HTC Desire
>
>
> sent from my HTC Desire
>
> On 15/10/2010 12:52 PM, "John Simons" <johnsimons...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> But even if you do that you still have the problem u mentioned above:
>
> "Problem is not too many people download betas, so we likely wouldn't
> catch that anyway."
> which btw I agree 100%.
>
> Which makes me think, What is the point of releasing alpha, beta, rc,
> if the users are not going to try them anyway?
>
> Maybe the solution is to have continuous releases, doesn't Ayende do
> that for NHProf, and Wordpress (seehttp://toni.org/2010/05/19/in-praise-of-continuous-deployment-the-wor...
>
> But even if you do that you still have the problem u mentioned above:
>
> "Problem is not too many people download betas, so we likely wouldn't
> catch that anyway."
> which btw I agree 100%.
>
> Which makes me think, What is the point of releasing alpha, beta, rc,
> if the users are not going to try them anyway?
>
> Maybe the solution is to have continuous releases, doesn't Ayende do
> )
James Curran
Oct 14, 2010, 11:27:18 PM10/14/10
to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com
This is why Microsoft has stopped using the word "beta".
They realized that no serious user downloaded the "beta", so now that call all of their half-baked versions "Release Candidates" (even if it's nowhere near a level where they would consider releasing it)
Truth,
James
Krzysztof Koźmic
Oct 15, 2010, 12:02:14 AM10/15/10
to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com
OpenWrap handles versioning. NuPack is just a fancy download tool
Johannes Gustafsson
Oct 18, 2010, 6:08:15 AM10/18/10
to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com
Just a question regarding version numbering. If 2.5.2 is just a bugfix release, wouldn't it be better to keep the version at 2.5.1 or at least just update the file version and not assembly version?
When 2.5.1 was released I had to recompile all my dependencies, (NHibernate, NServicebus and some other stuff) which is a real pain if it's just a bugfix release and no breaking changes.
Kind regards,
Johannes
2010/10/15 Krzysztof Koźmic <krzyszto...@gmail.com>
Krzysztof Koźmic
Oct 26, 2010, 8:06:47 AM10/26/10
to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com
Ok, I need some more feedback on this.
We have quite a few issues fixed for 2.5.2 http://github.com/castleproject/Castle.Windsor/blob/master/Changes.txt
(at least two more pending so it's almost 15 in Windsor, plus a few in Core).
We also have four breaking changes: http://github.com/castleproject/Castle.Windsor/blob/master/BreakingChanges.txt
As such I'm torn apart between making it seamless to update and making it explicit that this is a updated version as compared to 2.5.1
so what do you guys/gals think? Should we just update the file version number, or update complete version number?
We have quite a few issues fixed for 2.5.2 http://github.com/castleproject/Castle.Windsor/blob/master/Changes.txt
(at least two more pending so it's almost 15 in Windsor, plus a few in Core).
We also have four breaking changes: http://github.com/castleproject/Castle.Windsor/blob/master/BreakingChanges.txt
As such I'm torn apart between making it seamless to update and making it explicit that this is a updated version as compared to 2.5.1
so what do you guys/gals think? Should we just update the file version number, or update complete version number?
Patrick Steele
Oct 26, 2010, 8:29:56 AM10/26/10
to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com
In my opinion, since there are breaking changes, I would think moving
to a "2.6" release would be a better idea. It's a bit more clear to
consumers that this is a big change. 2.5.x releases should be for bug
fixes and possibly minor new features.
to a "2.6" release would be a better idea. It's a bit more clear to
consumers that this is a big change. 2.5.x releases should be for bug
fixes and possibly minor new features.
My 2 cents...
---
Patrick Steele
http://weblogs.asp.net/psteele
2010/10/26 Krzysztof Koźmic <krzyszto...@gmail.com>:
Krzysztof Koźmic
Oct 26, 2010, 8:31:06 AM10/26/10
to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com
But this is bug fixes - solely
Patrick Steele
Oct 26, 2010, 8:35:59 AM10/26/10
to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com
But your email said there's breaking changes:
"We also have four breaking changes:
http://github.com/castleproject/Castle.Windsor/blob/master/BreakingChanges.txt"
???
Krzysztof Koźmic
Oct 26, 2010, 8:40:11 AM10/26/10
to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com
Correct. Those were required to fix the issues. They are only going to
affect small fraction of the userbase methins and are not enough to
justify jump to 2.6.
affect small fraction of the userbase methins and are not enough to
justify jump to 2.6.
For 2.6 I would expect new features, and there are none.
On 26/10/2010 10:35 PM, Patrick Steele wrote:But your email said there's
Roelof Blom
Oct 26, 2010, 8:50:46 AM10/26/10
to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com
Making it a seamless upgrade for most users is my preference, so I'd rather keep the same assembly version.
2010/10/26 Krzysztof Koźmic <krzyszto...@gmail.com>
Patrick Steele
Oct 26, 2010, 8:52:55 AM10/26/10
to castle-pro...@googlegroups.com
Ahh... I see. Agreed.
---
Patrick Steele
http://weblogs.asp.net/psteele
2010/10/26 Krzysztof Koźmic <krzyszto...@gmail.com>:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages