This sounds most like my own preference too.
C
Donald Greer wrote:
> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:53:43 -0600
> From: Donald Greer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Spam Assassin List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Stable 2.0 vs. fixes
>
> Duncan Findlay wro
Duncan Findlay wrote:
[...]
>
> The only thing is that we tend to have new features ready for release much
> faster, rather than waiting for hundreds of them, so this would be a
> problem, new features that are quite stable don't get to the users fast
> enough.
>
>
Uh, based on Justin's n
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:59:35AM +, Ian Briggs wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Shane Williams wrote:
>
> > Will the 2.0 code continue to get bug fixes with the 2.1
> > series focusing on enhancements, or should I follow the 2.1 code to
> > get the latest fixes?
>
> Speaking as a novice at th
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Shane Williams wrote:
> Will the 2.0 code continue to get bug fixes with the 2.1
> series focusing on enhancements, or should I follow the 2.1 code to
> get the latest fixes?
Speaking as a novice at these things, I like the Linux way of numbering,
so 2.0.x fixes any bugs, an
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:51:42AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think most of the bugs encountered so far in 2.0 have been relatively
> minor ones. No branching has yet been done in CVS -- there is only the
> "2.0" codeline. Since we never branched before, nobody's yet followed up
> on
I think most of the bugs encountered so far in 2.0 have been relatively
minor ones. No branching has yet been done in CVS -- there is only the
"2.0" codeline. Since we never branched before, nobody's yet followed up
on the suggestions to do so with this release. This is probably a good
ifea
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Jan 24, Shane Williams wrote:
>
> > So, with all the traffic over the last 48 hours, I'm feeling a bit
> > confused. It seems clear that the official 2.0 release had a few
> > bugs. Are fixes to those bugs
On Jan 24, Shane Williams wrote:
> So, with all the traffic over the last 48 hours, I'm feeling a bit
> confused. It seems clear that the official 2.0 release had a few
> bugs. Are fixes to those bugs being rolled into the 2.0 code, or only
> being applied to the 2.1 code?
Ditto; I was just ab
So, with all the traffic over the last 48 hours, I'm feeling a bit
confused. It seems clear that the official 2.0 release had a few
bugs. Are fixes to those bugs being rolled into the 2.0 code, or only
being applied to the 2.1 code?
I guess this sort of goes back the version numbering question
