Last post Mar 18, 2009 02:46 PM by gerrylowry
Feb 04, 2009 02:34 PM|gerrylowry|LINK
ASP.NET MVC - RC Release Notes.doc 233 KB
AspNetMVCRC-setup.msi 1.7 MB
Above looks simple enough at first glance.
Is it the correct version? (rhetorical) ~~ see
NAMING RELEASES -- some examples
(1) http://code.google.com/p/moq/ especially
Moq.126.96.36.199-src.zip Moq 3.0 Beta Sources
Moq.188.8.131.52-bin.zip Moq 3.0 Beta Binaries and Help
Moq.2.6.1014.1-src.zip Moq 2.6 Sources
Moq.2.6.1014.1-bin.zip Moq 2.6 Binaries and Help
TestDriven.NET-2.19.2409 Beta 1/29/2009
TestDriven.NET-2.14.2190 RTM 7/23/2008
TestDriven.NET-2.13.2184 RTM 4/23/2008
imo, Microsoft needs to take a similiar approach; this applies
to other related ancillary projects (e.g.: xunit) in general;
for that matter, to all projects. It should not be necessary
to visit blogs and then to look at a file's properties/digital signatures
in order to distinguish one refresh from another.
AspNetMVCRC1.0.1.007 (my preference)
Similar techniques should also be used for related items like release notes:
ASP.NET MVC - RC Release Notes.doc versus
ASP.NET MVC-RC1.0.1.007 Release Notes.doc
Documentation is important!!! For each refresh there should be
corresponding release notes.
Developers should be able to receive refresh notices by
During the evolution of ASP.NET MVC, it would have been useful to be
able to subscribe to an announcement at
with a title like "ASP.NET MVC current refresh".
Feb 05, 2009 06:28 AM|gerrylowry|LINK
The need for a better naming convention applies to the source code too:
"ASP.NET MVC RC 1 Source Code"
The filename MVC.zip is insufficiently unique.
Nevertheless, I imagine that most of us really do appreciate having the source code.
Feb 06, 2009 08:09 PM|gerrylowry|LINK
Here's another place where I think it would be a good idea to clearly identify the version:
The sample page one gets if you immediately build and run your default
solution after invoking the ASP.NET MVC Web Application template,
says "My MVC Application" on the master page via the div with id="title" and
has "Home Page" as it's default title bar title via the content place holder within
the View / Home / Index.aspx page.
The template could use these places to embed to specific template version
into the default pages,
e.g.: "My MVC Application ASP.NET MVC RC version ______.
Feb 08, 2009 11:57 AM|Haacked|LINK
Thanks for the suggestions. We'll take them under consideration.
Mar 05, 2009 02:52 PM|gerrylowry|LINK
I noticed the source code for ASP.NET MVC RC2 is still simply named MVC.zip.
Would it be that difficult to call it MVCrc2source.zip?
Meaningful filenames are critical to developers.
ASP.NET MVC RC 2 Source Code
source code, 1212K, uploaded Tue - 550 downloads
Mar 18, 2009 02:46 PM|gerrylowry|LINK
Minimal progress is being made, the MVC-RTM.zip source is clearly named
but the folder inside the .zip is still simply named MVC.
As for the release notes, it's best to create a single growing document that
has a release history. Second best is to have links to previous versions.
Tom Archer in "Inside C#", 2001 * teaches about versioning assemblies in chapter 18:
yet gacutil /l shows
gacutil /l system.web.mvc
Microsoft (R) .NET Global Assembly Cache Utility. Version 3.5.21022.8
The Global Assembly Cache contains the following assemblies:
system.web.mvc, Version=184.108.40.206, Culture=neutral,
Number of items = 1
It seems to me that build and revision should not be
0.0 for each of RC1, RC2, and RTM.