On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 08:44:08AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 12:06:16PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > This could easily be the problem as I know that Matthew recently made > > > some modifications to the announcement code. > > Yup. Build 500 had a combinatorial explosion of announcements (within > > the node). Build 501 largely fixed this. Build 502 fixed another nasty. > > Build 503 will be out later today, and will fix the remaining behaviour. > > This is good, but we really can't up the build number that frequently > for our users - it will really piss them off. > > As a guideline - we should try not to increment the build number more > than once a week.
The build number serves a purpose. The reason we use it is so that when somebody says: "it isn't working" we can make sure they are not using an old build with known bugs. Therefore the build number should be increased: a) Every time bugs are fixed. b) Every time new bugs might be introduced. Whether this is once a week or once a day depends completely on how much work is being done. If upping the number often will "really piss off" the users, then they are either pissed that bugs are being fixed (???) or using it for the wrong purpose. If you want to introduce a "upped only once a week" number, then go ahead and do so, but don't compromise the meaning of the current designator and make debugging and helping people run fred a bitch in the process. -- Oskar Sandberg oskar at freenetproject.org _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
