>I'd say it still only warrants a 1.1. There are insufficient new >features added or changed functionality. Leave 2.0 for a major >rewrite.
Are you sure? Have you looked at the changes? There was a whole lot of cleaning up that was done, and I don't think the security stuff was insignificant either (but I'm obviously biased). >I think bumping a version number simply to draw attention to a >realease is a bit of a lie. The nmh code is still quite a mess. I'd >rather see 2.0 be a nice clean release. Why not kick this out as 1.1.0 >(with a 1.1.1 coming soon after with the additional patches from the >archives) and instead write up a roadmap of what 2.0 should do? I'll think about it; I don't have really strong feelings that this should be 2.0, but enough people disagree with this one that maybe it's the wrong call. I guess I'll save my energy for my first controversial CVS commit that I know is going to get people screaming :-) --Ken
