|
From: Florian S. <fs...@de...> - 2015-12-10 12:09:21
|
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 09:31:51AM -0800, Jim Fenton wrote: > One thing I'm a little concerned about is that, since there are changes > to both DAViCal and AWL, making sure that a compatible version of AWL is > used. I haven't tried to see if anything really bad happens if the AWL > fix isn't also applied -- hope not -- but wonder if we should increment > the AWL version number and the required AWL version in DAViCal to at > least point out that AWL needs to be updated. yes, we should definitely make a release for both and hence increase the version number for awl. The only place version numbers currently seem to be compared, though, is in setup.php and it's purely informational. So for people not using e.g. Debian packages with enforced minimum-version dependencies, this may well get out of sync. BTW I may not be able to attend the IRC meeting tonight (after coming down with a flu and missing the one a few weeks ago), but I've finally added a tiny bit of documentation on the davical-current repository and I look forward to start testing a 1.1.4 release candidate tomorrow? :-) Florian |