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 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 new traveling schedule, and the crunch that > practically everyone else on the devlopment team as said they've found > them selves in, I suspect that the pace of releases going "golden" will > slow down rapidly. > Having a two-pronged development model allows us to get > patches/fixes/increamental feature-adds quickly into production with a > minimum of fuss/reconfiguration. When you're working with a server(s) > passing 10K-100K (1M?) messages a day, that's VERY important. > I'd say that if you have "2.0.x" and you download "2.0.y" (where x < > y) you should be able to do the "....; make install" and make little or > no modifications to your configuration files to have a running system. > If you go from "2.1.x" to "2.1.y" (where x < y) then there is > potential for major changes, include restructuring/adding/dropping > database tables, splitting up/merging/relocating cf files, > upgrading/installing Perl or Perl modules. The same holds true for > going from "2.x.?" to "2.y.?" (where x < y). > If these rules are followed, it will make SA much easier to > administer and still allow rapid bug-fixes and feature adds (like the > auto-whitelist and sql stuff) that are _very_ important to certain > implimentations. > Don > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
