Duncan Findlay said:
> > - some spamc/spamd command line arg semantics changed (hence the major
> > # change)
> Is the only difference the -f flag as mandatory? I didn't see anything
> else. (I was, however, hoping that spamassassin -P would become standard)
argh, yes, that was intended. Do you think it will be possible to bundle
2.0 as-is for Debian, or does the omission of -P-as-default screw that up?
> [bugfixes & 2.1]
2.1 should be a mainly-bugfix release IMO.
I don't think we're need to put out a 2.1 straight away; the bugs in 2.0
aren't that serious IMO. But if the -P thing screws up a pkg-ization of
2.0 then I'd be happy to change that and release 2.1 with the bugfixes,
ASAP.
SW:
> Speaking as a novice at these things, I like the Linux way of numbering,
> so 2.0.x fixes any bugs, and 2.1.x is where new features are developed
> -- so newcomers like me who just want the most stable version will use
> the latest in the 2.0.x series, and anyone who wants new features will
> use the 2.1.x series.
Regarding "stable" releases etc. -- I prefer the traditional model,
whereby CVS is unstable, but each release point should be stable. In my
experience, different versioning doesn't really help -- the thing is,
anything painted as a "stable" release gets a whole lot more testing from
a wider range of people in a wider range of setups -- which shows up bugs.
Perhaps, though, it would be worth moving to a "release candidate" system,
ie.
2.00 -> 2.01 -> 2.02 -> 2.03 -> 2.04
where those are released quickly, one after the other, until 2.04 finally
has no serious bugs, and is therefore nominated "stable".
Freaky:
>I think maybe we should seperate the rules and the software. People
>who don't want to sit on the bleeding edge of the Perl may still like to
>stick to up to date rulesets, and it opens the road up for external apps
>to use it more easily.
Yes, this would be a good plan for "subscribing" to the latest rules.
Needs a few minor tweaks in the code (e.g. it shouldn't complain if an
eval test is not available).
Craig said:
>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?
It'd be worthwhile, alright. I'll send you a mail about the website BTW,
that's all CVS driven...
--j.
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
