Re: [fetchmail-devel] Re: Not Yet Reviewed Queue is Empty!

[Matthias A. <ma...@dt...>]

Graham Wilson <gr...@mk...> writes:

> Once we've figured out how were going to build release tarballs, I'd
> like to look at the differences between the 6.2.5 tarball and the 6.2.6
> tarball, and make sure we are aware of all of the changes.
>
> Hmm... come to think of it, should this release be 6.3.0? This is the
> first release in a while, and the maintainers have changed. Seems to me
> to warrant more than a patch version number increased.

I'm reading the numer as major.minor.patchlevel.

The maintainer change doesn't warrant the minor bump, but the automake
switchover does, so I'd also vote for 6.3.0.

I'd suggest we bump minor if we add features or make large compatible
changes; and we bump major for incompatible changes, and patchlevel for
bugfixes.

We absolutely MUST refrain from doing ESR's nonsense of calling .0
patchlevels "gold". The latest patchlevel with the same major.minor is
"gold", currently 6.2.5, rather than 6.2.0 - and we need to communicate
this change in versioning to our users.

I'd also suggest that we do bugfix patches only on patchlevels
henceforth, similar to what the GCC team do (they are a bit more radical
and will just fix regressions, not even regular bugs).

-- 
Matthias Andree

Encrypted mail welcome: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95 (PGP/MIME preferred)