Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh 1.1 release candidate 4

[Chad Walstrom]

Ken wrote:
> My $0.02 regarding the whole 1.1 release naming:
> 
> I would have preferred that 1.1 not really be out there.  I never
> announced it and I couldn't remove it, but somehow it ended up as
> the release for a bunch of systems.  I never considered this a
> "real" release myself.

The unfortunate fact is that although you did not "announce" the
release, by placing it in the public download directory it became a
release.  It was a mistake, but not a big one.  People would have used
whatever you placed there, be it an official release or a candidate
release.  If you had called it RC4, RC3.1, whatever, it would still be
found in Debian Sarge, for example.

> But as Jon has discovered, there are plenty of people out there who
> will speak up when they think you're doing the wrong thing, but damn
> few who will actually help.  My advice to Jon is: do what you want,
> and the rest of the world will have to suck it up if they don't like
> it.  You're doing the work: that gives you the right to make the
> decision.  I think he should give consideration to other people's
> opinions, but the decision is ultimately his.

Jon made a slight oversight based the version naming, but again, not a
big deal.  It'll get worked out one way or another.  There was nothing
in his 09/02 post that indicated he didn't know about the existence of
nmh-1.1.tar.gz, just stating that, "This release should be the last in
the 1. line. After this, we should start a 2."  I had understood that
to mean he would release a nmh-1.1.x.tar.gz tarball.  nmh-1.2 or
nmh-1.1.x doesn't really matter.  The confusion only exists by
re-releasing a 1.1 different than what's out there today.