Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Matthias Andree <ma(_at_)dt(_dot_)e-technik(_dot_)uni-dortmund(_dot_)de>:
I aim to branch fetchmail in two:
I've thought hard about doing this. So far, I've always come down,
though narrowly, against it. I've thought of the code as being
in maintainance mode for a long time. If you look at the NEWS file,
you'll see that nontrivial new features have been pretty rare for the
last year.
True enough, as far as it goes....
The pace has been slowing lately, with the interval between releases
increasing. This isn't a picture of a program that even *needs* a
development branch, really.
Then you need to promote the actual latest version as the best
release, not the last .0 release.
(I've always had a problem with claiming that the .0 release is the
good one, since there are always bug fixes after that.)
Anyway, I actually disagree with your statement that since development
has slowed there doesn't need to be a development branch. Even when
development is slow, it's useful to have that branch there so that
it's possible to break things in trying to improve them.
(BTW, I also agree with Matthias on the default antispam setting.)
--
==============================|"...his hands were doing what they liked to
Rob Funk <rfunk(_at_)funknet(_dot_)net> | do best -- replacing men like
himself with
http://www.funknet.net/rfunk | machines." - Kurt Vonnegut, "Player Piano"