shibboleth-dev - Re: opensaml version
Subject: Shibboleth Developers
List archive
- From: Will Norris <>
- To: "Scott Cantor" <>
- Cc: <>
- Subject: Re: opensaml version
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:02:09 -0500
(oops... didn't "reply all")
On Apr 5, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Scott Cantor wrote:
Am I the only one confused by the 1.1 there? Would it not make sense
to rename the jar so that it is evident it's not an actual released
version of opensaml? just a thought.
You're looking at unreleased Shibboleth code. There's nothing final about
anything in it. Why should we temporarily name the jar something else?
Yes, I'm working from HEAD.
It just seems intrinsically wrong to refer to it by a name that isn't accurate. Something with "beta", "nightly", or whatever would accurately reflect that it is not in fact a released version of opensaml with the version number 1.1. I was confused by it because I didn't already know what the jar was (as you do); now that I know it's not as big a deal moving forward. As for the next person to run across it, well...
I guess it's just semantics.
--
William J. Norris
Information Technology
The University of Memphis
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
- opensaml version, Will Norris, 04/05/2005
- RE: opensaml version, Scott Cantor, 04/05/2005
- Re: opensaml version, Will Norris, 04/05/2005
- RE: opensaml version, Scott Cantor, 04/05/2005
- Re: opensaml version, Will Norris, 04/05/2005
- RE: opensaml version, Scott Cantor, 04/05/2005
- Re: opensaml version, Will Norris, 04/05/2005
- RE: opensaml version, Scott Cantor, 04/05/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.