On 28/03/2007 19:39, Eric Rostetter wrote:
People running Fedora Core run 0.99, and they do not know it isn't
production
(since it comes with FC, which they don't know isn't production).
They ought to; FC in its entirety is devel for RHEL, and this is
prominently pointed out all over the F web sites.
People
running RHEL 5 apparently get a release candidate, but they may think it
is production since RHEL 5 is _supposed_ to be production. So they ask
here, and get flamed for running a non-production version. It isn't their
fault.
In a sense, it is; it's certainly not Dovecot's. If <distro> chooses to
include version <a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k>, consumers of <distro> ought to
take up any problems with <distro> before they come here.
I go to atrpms or dag wieers or elsewhere, and it might list both devel
and production ones, but it doesn't say that, it just lists version
numbers. How am I to know, unless I'm smart enough to go to the original
web site and check?
If you're "smart enough" not to ask Red Hat, atrpms, dag wieers or
elsewhere, "smart enough" not to ask the packager, "smart enough" to
come to the original developer, you really ought to be smart enough to
come to the original web site and check.
New users (Fedora Core type users) will get confused. What you do on
the main site is important, but it is not the whole story from the
end-user's point of view.
No, it isn't. This list may be for everyone, but versioning etc. is for
developers - or at least those who can read the web site or an INSTALL
file in the source.
Perhaps this all sounds harsh, maybe dovecot would do better for having
separate user and devel lists - but right at the moment, dovecot seems
to be moving along at a tremendous pace and it's only got one list!
Once dovecot's reached 1.0, a sane version numbering system will help
put all this to rest.
Cheers,
John.
