Consider tagging a version in sync with ITK releases about castxml

[bradking]

As stated in the thread you linked we would like to tag CastXML once it is mature enough for a release. I think it is close now but haven't had a chance to finalize it yet.

In general projects should not tag themselves with versions of their dependents. The dependents should refer to the versions of their needed dependencies. ITK records its version of CastXML via Git SHA-1 in Wrapping/Generators/CastXML/CMakeLists.txt:

GIT_TAG 552dd691215cdafdbe6706e6f76be9d392fb3ffe

[gerddie]

Hence you assume that CastXML with this git SHA-1 is stable enough for doing something, i.e. for creating ITK language bindings. Why not give it a descriptive tag to indicate that? Incidentally on github this has the nice feature that one can directly get an according tarball, and you could also use this descriptive tag in ITK instead of the git SHA-1.
This would also make the relationship between projects clearer and easier to document. IMNSHO putting such relationships into the build files somewhere within a project by using svn revisions and git SHA-1 numbers is bad practise because it disguises these relationships, and I am kind of disappointed that you at Kitware, with your otherwise transparent development process do this.

well, that's my $0.02.