http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3523
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-06-27 20:55 ------- ok, +1 on everything except for this: 'About the > 1 dev version: I meant the case when we already started a new HEAD and backport stuff to a STABLE branch parallely (as we normally do). Then we'd have for example a 3.0-dev and a 3.1-dev (or 3.0.x-dev/3.1.x-dev) lying around, one for each branch. ' I would prefer *not* having multiple dev tarballs. IMO, the 3.1.x-dev tree in that example is what the "bleeding-edge dev tarball" should contain; a 3.0.x-maintainance branch should *not* be available as a "bleeding-edge tarball". It's just going to make the nightly-snapshot code and the website code to support it, more complex, without being enough of a win to make it worth it. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
