[tei-council] Next Release; Codename: GroundHog Day

[Gabriel Bodard]

I have no strong feelings either way, but my understanding was that it 
was argued the addition of geo to att.declaring was an obvious bug-fix, 
and so shouldn't require a 2.1. (If I'm mistaken, or even if I'm correct 
but people disagree with this argument, then go ahead and name it 2.1.0.)

G

On 2012-01-31 16:02, Martin Holmes wrote:
> I think there has been at least one schema-affecting change:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r10035 | gabrielbodard | 2012-01-12 09:54:18 -0800 (Thu, 12 Jan 2012) |
> 1 line
>
> added<geo>  to att.declaring
>
> So I guess we should be going for 2.1.0.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> On 12-01-31 07:01 AM, James Cummings wrote:
>>
>> Just a reminder that any bugs, typos, corrections, and
>> schema-affecting changes you've spotted in the Guidelines should
>> be fixed by midnight tonight.  This gives us all of Wednesday 1st
>> of Feb for proofreading and corrections of any additional typos
>> we find, with an intended release by MartinH on Thursday 2 February.
>>
>> Is the next release going to be 2.1.0 or 2.0.2?  Correct me if
>> I'm wrong but If there have been schema-affecting changes then
>> the second number is meant to increment. Have there been
>> schema-affecting changes since 2.0.1?
>>
>> -James
>>
>> On 18/01/12 00:13, James Cummings wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Since no one else has piped up, can I suggest a schedule:
>>>
>>> 31 January midnight GMT: submission deadline of significant changes
>>> 1 February: Whole Day for council to proofread and correct typos.
>>> 2nd February: Release (Codename: Groundhog Day)
>>>
>>> Since Martin asked, I suggest him as release technician.
>>>
>>> Any reasons why these dates are wholly unsuitable?
>>>
>>> -James
>>>
>>> On 17/01/12 16:11, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>>>> Has there been any consensus on when 2.0.2 might be put out?
>>>>
>>>> (I ask because, if it's soon I won't both hacking the EpiDoc schema to
>>>> allow geo/@decl; I'll just wait for TEI to introduce it and regenerate
>>>> the schema properly. :-) )
>>>>
>>>> G
>>>>
>>>> On 2012-01-12 17:39, Martin Holmes wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we need to release a 2.0.2 soon, during which we again run
>>>>> through the instructions, after adding the tagging instruction. Should
>>>>> we do a quick trawl through the tickets and decide which ones might beS
>>>>> polished off quickly without controversy?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can I be the one to go through the release steps this time?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12-01-12 08:27 AM, Peter Stadler wrote:
>>>>>> Dear geeks again,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> again wondering: just downloaded the current release 2.0.1 from sourceforge (tei-2.0.1.zip) and the editionStmt at tei-2.0.1/xml/tei/p5subset.xml reads<edition>2.0.0 Last updated on<date when="2011-12-16">16th December 2011</date>.</edition>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that mean it wasn't updated at all or is just the editionStmt wrong?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many thanks again
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)

Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

Email: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/