2.0rc7 -> 2.0 in two weeks

Bernhard Reiter bernhard at intevation.de
Wed Apr 30 16:24:18 CEST 2008

Hi Joon,

On Friday 18 April 2008 17:12, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> Hmmm, actually there were a few minor changes over the time,
> so I think it would be reasonable to stick with the idea of using 2.0 now.
> Otherwise we could decouple the version number of the type from the version
> number of the specification and just keep the "1.0" until we hit an
> incompatible change. I tend to at least upgrade to "2.0". Shouldn't be a
> large problem as implementor would have considered this "feature" for a
> while.
> What do you all think?

we (Ludwig) did a quick test with
KDE Kolab Client Proko2, enterprise35, Horde and Toltec 2.2.0 (we happend to 
have this on one testing machine).

s/<event version="1.0" >/<event version="2.0" >
s/<contact version=1.0" >/<contact version="2.0">

the only problem was there with Toltec which did not display the objects.
Joon, can you confirm?

If so, this would be an argument for keeping "1.0" in the upcoming 2.0 
spec. :)

Managing Director - Owner: www.intevation.net       (Free Software Company)
Germany Coordinator: fsfeurope.org. Coordinator: www.Kolab-Konsortium.com.
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.kolab.org/pipermail/format/attachments/20080430/9ea17123/attachment.sig>

More information about the format mailing list