| 1 |
On Saturday 19 July 2003 18:17, Kurt Lieber wrote: |
| 2 |
> I just noticed that mutt-1.5.4-r1 was marked stable on x86. The 1.5 branch |
| 3 |
> of mutt is the development branch -- 1.4 is the stable branch, similar to |
| 4 |
> the 2.4/2.5 kernel series. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> It seems wrong to me that we would mark development branches of software as |
| 7 |
> stable. The mutt developers, who presumably know mutt much better than any |
| 8 |
> of us do, don't feel 1.5 is stable -- who are we to disagree? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Do we have some sort of policy for this? If not, can we make one? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I believe there is a policy, and, although deviation is allowed, I do believe |
| 13 |
that in this case it is not appropriate. Deviation is more in case the latest |
| 14 |
stable is ancient. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Paul |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 20 |
Researcher |
| 21 |
Mail: pauldv@××××××.nl |
| 22 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives