[Dovecot] Version numbering

[John Robinson]

On 29/03/2007 03:41, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Quoting John Robinson <john.robinson at anonymous.org.uk>:
>> 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.
> 
> Yes, exactly.  But they still don't know, or just don't get it.
> And I'm talking large scale here, not a few people.

Again, their problem, not ours, as Charles Marcus seems (to me) to have 
pointed out.

>> 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.
> 
> Yeah, but how likely is that (especially if they use a RHEL clone instead
> of the real RHEL)?

People like me? Again, if you use a RHEL clone like CentOS, you ought to 
have read the support details (i.e. this is a free rebuild, you may rely 
on RH but don't complain to them or us). If you use ATrpms packages, you 
ought to have read the support details (i.e. testing latest software, 
works for Axel, don't complain to him).

If CentOS users come here, they should be ready to be told "don't use 
that, try the latest, or wait for RHEL to fix theirs and CentOS to follow".

Having said all this, what it probably boils down to is that once we've 
a release, we (this list) can support 1.0 while we try to contribute to 
1.1 (or whatever), but before we've a release it's definitely the 
responsibility of packagers who decide to make a release to support 
their packages.

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

Oh yes, I agree, especially mine :-)

Cheers,

John.