[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You really need to increment the version number every time
there's a commit. That way, when someone says 'nmh-1.04-dev-5
did this' you know precisely where you're up to.
If you are tracking development code you just need to know when
you last checked it out of CVS.
Chad C. Walstrom wrote:
On the topic of version number designation, I personally like the way
the Linux kernel is versioned. If you're not familiar with it, here's
the quick and dirty. MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH. MAJOR changes when
We had this discussion before and opted for labeling in-development
Chad C. Walstrom wrote:
On the topic of version number designation, I personally like the way
the Linux kernel is versioned. If you're not familiar with it, here's
the quick and dirty. MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH. MAJOR changes when
We had this discussion before and opted for labeling
I agree with the ``save 2.0 for the next round of new features''
sentiment. I suggest putting out a release with as many of the bugfixes
as we can get in, then start working on a 2.0 beta with major new
features/interface changes/what-have-you.
chad
On the topic of version number designation, I personally like the way
the Linux kernel is versioned. If you're not familiar with it, here's
the quick and dirty. MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH. MAJOR changes when
evolutionary changes have occurred. MINOR level has a special meaning.
Odd numbered MINOR
Okay, my reading of the rough consensus of the messages I've seen is,
Yes, do something, dammit. Here's what I think we should do:
- We should wait for Dan to say something. I just checked my exmh address
book, and the last message I ever saw from Dan was July 31st. So I'm
not even sure
Ken Hornstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this point, I become the Grand High Poobah of nmh.
Great, politics already. :/
I _would_ like to do off-site backups of the CVS repository,
but assuming everything goes through, I'll work that off-line
with Doug.
Definately... It would be a
Ken Hornstein wrote:
Part of my motivation for a 2.0 release is to draw attention back to
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.
I think bumping a version number simply to draw attention to a
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
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Ken Hornstein wrote:
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.
I will side with Doug on this (Sorry if I'm being difficult ;-( ). My
reasons are explained below.
Are you
10 matches
Mail list logo
