>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 5:05 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: 2.6 -> 3.0 migration questions
>
>
>At 04:43 PM 9/30/2004, Ben Rosengart wrote:
>>we are pretty unhappy about the skimpy upgrade documentation
>
>Hmm, true, but are you volunteering to help write better
>documentation?
>(General principle in FOSS: If you don't like it, volunteer to help if
>you're able.)
>
Reminds me of something DQ says a lot, something like, "If you submit the
code for that, we will be happy to review it." :-)
>At least this time there is an UPGRADE document. That never
>happened before
>in any other release, which is a small step forward. Prior
>releases got a
>few terse notes about the major issues added to README, but
>nothing nearly
>as in-depth as the still-sparse UPGRADE document from 3.0.
Yes, I was wuite happy to see an UPGRADE. That is a step forward. It also
says to see the wiki. They can't know everyones setups, but they give you
the basics.
>
>
>>and the number of apparently-gratuitous changes ("hits"
>becomes "score"?).
>
> You'd not believe the number of people who don't understand what SA
>means by "hits" when they first encounter it. Particularly
>since SA used to
>use "score" "hits" and "points" interchangeably and without
>much consistency.
>
>A lot of naming convention changes come about after realizing that the
>original naming isn't as clear as originally thought, or
>inconsistent with
>other parts of the software. It's painful to go through, but
>makes life a
>bit easier on the project in the long run by improving clarity.
>
I'm also happy to see this change.
--Chris
