Shibboleth Developers

[Will Norris <>]

(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