Muddleftpd - Flexible, secure FTP Daemon - News: Muddleftpd 1.3.12.1 out
Ack (posted by Beau Kuiper, Wed 16 Oct 2002 12:33:26 PM UTC) |
Unless there is a good reason not to, I think we should only increment the third version number.
Ie, this release should probably have been 1.3.13, even though it only contains a single fix.
A good reason for using a forth version number is to split off a new tree when dangerous new features are being introduced into the main development tree.
An example of this is my old 1.3.7.X series, becasue in 1.3.8 I heavily modified the interprocess communication code, and was not sure if it was rock solid.
|
RE: Ack (posted by Joerg Jaspert, Wed 16 Oct 2002 03:02:25 PM UTC) |
Hi
Well, i disagree there.
I try to have that version number schema:
W.X.Y[.Z]
where:
W = Major
X.Y = Minor
Z = Bugfix
and Y indicates a development release if it is odd (CVS normally) and a stable one if it is even.
Z is only used for bugfixes to stable releases.
That way we can add fixes to our stable releases without the need to release a new stable out of the devel tree (that would be numbered 1.3.14 in this case) whithout the sureness that it doesnt break somewhere.
The dangerous new features: Well, for that we can open a branch in the CVS to develop and test them there without touching the mainline. Only interested users/developers download that tree with cvs, so they know why it breaks.
We should never release them, so no need to give them special numbers. (Of course the default.in in that branch can be changed to indicate the branch). After testing we then just merge it back into HEAD.
What do you think about that?
|