While I agree basically, I tend to think of how much was the product changed to determine the number sequence. If they are going to deliver what they have indicated with 5.1, I can't imagine that much of the source code for any of it hasn't been touched. Adding the security they have promised (and were showing parts of at DevCon) would require virtually all of the code to be touched. From my perspective, things that are touched tend to get broken, and therefore the amount of testing I do before I subject my customers to it is much greater. To call this a 5.1 instead of a 6.0 release is extremely misleading in my opinion. Mark
"Denver Braughler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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.
