Kern, I really don't have a dog in this fight, as I am running Debian "Sarge" servers which still are at 1.36.2, however, I would like to make these two observations.
1) This raises a question about just what version numbers mean. I've read an article or two about "corruption" to versioning schemes. I think most schemes use a major & minor numbers, where major number changes result from significant changes to the application, i.e., changes which require the rebuilding & reformatting of data files, or that significantly change functioning or processing of the application. All other changes, then, are minor. While all this is great in theory, I quite appreciate the practical difficulties that can arise. 2) Bacula "works" for me, even the somewhat dated version that I am running. It really matters little to me what new features you add or fixes that you make, so long as an upgrade doesn't "break" what already is working for me. So, in conclusion <grin> I guess what I'm saying is, that so long as nothing you do would break an existing installation then by all means, take the choice which requires the least amount of effort on your part and still makes some sense as far as version numbers are concerned. And, thanks for all that you do. Bacula is great! Cheers! cmr PS Apologies for top-posting. On Thursday 08 December 2005 11:03 am, Kern Sibbald wrote: > Hello, > > I have an important decision to make concerning updates to 1.38, and before > making it, I would like to get your input. > > The current "production" release is Bacula version 1.38.2. Between the > time it was released (22 November 2005) and now, there are a number of bugs > that have been fixed, which some users might want to include in their > system. > > The problem is that these fixes are for the most part in version 1.39, and > are quite difficult to back port to 1.38. > > There are a number of different ways to handle the problem: > 1. Back port the important fixes to the 1.38 stream and release a 1.38.3 > (at least 1 week of work). > 2. Release the current 1.39.2 but as version 1.38.3 (1 day's work) > 3. Release the current 1.39.2 as version 1.39.2 (same work as item 2) > 4. Don't do anything > > Now, I would like to get the fixes in the hands of the users, so I can rule > out option 4. My preference is for options 2 or 3, because it will most > quickly allow me to get on with development rather than maintenance. The > problem with option 2 is that there are a good number of new features in > 1.39.2, which are not yet stable. At the same time, all the base features > of 1.38.2 appear to me to be quite stable in 1.39.2. > > So, I would appreciate your input on this subject. > > Below, I include for your information the technical notes on what is in > version 1.39.2 that is not in version 1.38.2 (or bugs that are fixed). -- Debian 'Sarge': Registered Linux User #241964 ---- "More laws, less justice." -- Marcus Tullius Ciceroca, 42 BC -------- ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
