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 anyway for a few days/weeks after a major release -- don't yet start working on new code, just stabilize what's out there. There really was quite a substantial change from 1.5->2.0, and so it is probably to be expected that there are some wrinkles as it comes out the door in .0.0 form. I would expect that probably in the next few days though most of those wrinkles will be ironed out, mainly if those of us with commit privs restrain ourselves from adding new features and just go with bug fixing for a while. Meanwhile we can accumulate feature requests in http://www.hughes-family.org/bugzilla where by the way you are all encouraged to report both feature requests and bugs of any severity.
jm, on all of this, I'm not sure if you mentioned what your timeline was for getting on the road, etc. Do you want me to just go ahead and start the process of picking up the reigns now? C Quoting Matt Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > -----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 being rolled into the 2.0 > > code, or only > > > being applied to the 2.1 code? > > > > Ditto; I was just about to finally upgrade from my current, very > > stable late-1.4 code to 2.0 when the bug reports started coming > > out. I'm using SA/Razor in production, and I need this to be a > fairly > > bombproof upgrade. I'd like to get the whitelist capablity, but > there > > have been so many other issues that I've held off waiting for things > > to settle out. > > > > For those of us who prefer a stable version, rather than the current > > bleeding edge code, what is the correct course of action- and when > > should we act? > > This is a tough call. I'm using SA from CVS just a while before 2.0 > was > released and it's running fine (processed 20,000 emails with it today > alone). But I may have missed a few of the late-introduced bugs. Also > our > setup isn't the same as anyone elses - we just use SA as a class, not as > an > application. > > So I'll punt to JM. > > Matt. (who has to give a talk about our anti-spam technology to our > sales > conference tomorrow. Yeek!) > > _________________________________________________________ _______________ > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The > service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive > anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: > http://www.star.net.uk > _________________________________________________________ _______________ > > _______________________________________________ > Spamassassin-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk > > > _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
