Release status and plans
rra at stanford.edu
Sat Mar 3 21:14:15 UTC 2001
Forrest J Cavalier <mibsoft at epix.net> writes:
> Can we make it a release policy that anything that requires a rebuild of
> history or overview is a MAJOR release?
Sure, that sounds like a good idea. I'm *hoping* that we can avoid
needing that much in the future, and in particular the history API should
*not* require a history rebuild. We can provide our existing history
mechanisms under that API, after all.
> The INN 2.2 to 2.3 upgrade is a big gotcha. Users don't expect that
> much pain for a minor release. I think it should have been named INN
> 3.0, not 2.3.0.
Yeah, that's probably true.
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
More information about the inn-workers