Ram�n Jim�nez wrote: > John Bertoglio wrote: > > ... A measure that would be helpful would be an advisory as > > to WHO should perform an upgrade and WHAT he may expect. I agree.
> And don't even get me started with the whole 5.1/6.0 thing. In my mind > it is clearly a 6.0 release, ... At least until May 2003, ISC was indeed calling it 6.0. To me, major releases are those that require actions like recompiling all object code, reformatting the database, running some sort of conversion, or, code changes. Minor releases add new features but should not break mature code. A minor release (say, x.3) could supersede the preceding minor release (x.2) where an error is being corrected that affects recent code using new features in a manner that requires some re-coding, but does not affect mature code. In such a case, x.2 would be listed a "recalled". Maintenance releases fix bugs or make small tweaks like another parameter to existing features that are so isolated that the chance of adverse consequences to existing installations is negligible. Probably they should be released as a patch to an existing binary executable or as an XML export file. 5.0.11 sounds too plump to be a mere maintenance release. Exactly what 5.1 will require, I have not heard. But I also think that it probably warrants being classified as a major release because if nothing else, existing procedures regarding user security may have to be changed.
