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