Le 20/04/13 17:19, Ben Webb a écrit : > On 4/20/13 2:36 AM, Yannick Spill wrote: >> I think if we are to do a 2.0 release, let's try to have one without >> compile warnings. > > I agree with Daniel that it could take forever to get to a release if > we insist on that. (If you really want to spend your time on cosmetic > cleanups before a release, the isd module examples don't work. The > typical user is much more likely to notice that than some random > compile warnings, which most people have been conditioned to ignore > anyway. Almost all of the test failures right now are in isd too, but > that's less important. But if I had to choose between fixing tests and > fixing compile warnings, I'd fix tests, since those are what should be > telling you if you screwed up something when you tried to fix the > compile warnings!) > hmm. okay. that sounds incriminating for IMP.isd. >> By the way, how do you want to do this naming? >> 2.0 for a major release >> 2.0.x++ for a hotfix >> 2.1 for the next release, in 6 months >> what do you think? > > I thought we'd already agreed on exactly that, but if not, that sounds > reasonable. ;) > remember I only talk to you guys per email :)
> Ben