james-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noel J. Bergman" <n...@devtech.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSSION] Release descriptions
Date Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:25:38 GMT

This is what we had previously agreed upon.  As Stefano points out, the
"catch" is the subjective understanding of what makes something a major,
minor or point release.  And I would add some degree of risk assessment to
the mix.  A point release should have very little risk when upgrading.  A
minor release may have a bit more, and a major release even more.

IMO, we could have released JAMES 2.2.0 as V3.  And the next release to ship
with the improved fast-fail should be 3.0.0, IMO, even though we have an
early version of that concept in 2.3.0.  IMO, the migration to in-protocol
rejection from bounce notices is a major functional change.

The subjective nature of numbering a version should not be a problem, except
when when deciding (for example) which of multiple concurrent development
branches is going to have which release number.

	--- Noel

View raw message