[Dovecot] Version numbering

[John Robinson]

On 28/03/2007 19:39, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> People running Fedora Core run 0.99, and they do not know it isn't 
> production
> (since it comes with FC, which they don't know isn't production).

They ought to; FC in its entirety is devel for RHEL, and this is 
prominently pointed out all over the F web sites.

>  People
> running RHEL 5 apparently get a release candidate, but they may think it
> is production since RHEL 5 is _supposed_ to be production.  So they ask
> here, and get flamed for running a non-production version.  It isn't their
> fault.

In a sense, it is; it's certainly not Dovecot's. If <distro> chooses to 
include version <a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k>, consumers of <distro> ought to 
take up any problems with <distro> before they come here.

> I go to atrpms or dag wieers or elsewhere, and it might list both devel
> and production ones, but it doesn't say that, it just lists version
> numbers.  How am I to know, unless I'm smart enough to go to the original
> web site and check?

If you're "smart enough" not to ask Red Hat, atrpms, dag wieers or 
elsewhere, "smart enough" not to ask the packager, "smart enough" to 
come to the original developer, you really ought to be smart enough to 
come to the original web site and check.

> New users (Fedora Core type users) will get confused.  What you do on
> the main site is important, but it is not the whole story from the 
> end-user's point of view.

No, it isn't. This list may be for everyone, but versioning etc. is for 
developers - or at least those who can read the web site or an INSTALL 
file in the source.

Perhaps this all sounds harsh, maybe dovecot would do better for having 
separate user and devel lists - but right at the moment, dovecot seems 
to be moving along at a tremendous pace and it's only got one list!

Once dovecot's reached 1.0, a sane version numbering system will help 
put all this to rest.

Cheers,

John.