>From Mr.Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> "IC" == Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> IC> The question then is whether we reserve the stable branch for
> IC> 0.3.6.x releases, or for 0.3.x releases, I vote for 0.3.x.
>
>That's what I'm voting for, now, too.
>
>BUT, I'd like to see some of the newer stuff, like MSKs and date-based
>redirects go into 0.4, and really try to wind 0.3 down to just bug
>fixing and egregious problems like the ref blocking you fixed.
>
>If we have TWO branches adding new features, we are going to have a
>hell of a time reconciling them when the time comes.
>
>One man's opinion.
>
>~Mr. Bad
I think the big source of confusion here is the version numbering; the tenths
digit appears to be generations of the fundamental workings of the node and
network, while the lesser digits are for client features and packaging
modifications, with some node bugfixes thrown in. If Scott and Oskar went
into some sort of Mountain Dew-induced frenzy and released the 0.4 node
tomorrow, the 0.4.0 client would be fundamentally equal to the 0.3.6 one,
which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
So anyway, I think we need to have seperate version numbers for at least:
1. the node, "core" parts of fred that the client uses but aren't in the
Freenet.client directory, and protocol (0.3.x, 0.4.x when the PK gets added)
2. The CLI clients, ClientUtil, fproxy, and installers. (1.0? 0.0.6?
preferrably something that can't be confused with a node version number) These
projects have more "breadth" than "depth", and could go through revisions on a
much faster timetable than the node.
This would really be quite a superficial change to reflect the fact that these
are pretty much two seperate projects already (different developers, etc...)
--
Benjamin Coates
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
