Re: Version Control (was: SETEUID on Exec)

[Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>]

> > I personally thought that we would just change the lowbit on 1.0.x
> > until we felt we had a version capable of being 1.1.0. What other
> > people are suggesting will *require* that we maintain 2 source
> > trees. Not trival seeing how much work it has been to maintain 1.
> > 
> > This is why I suggested adding the 3rd field to the version...
> > 
> > We can always release it as 1.0.97_beta to give the warning.
> 
> This will be horrible in practice - we need to apply bugfixes only to 1.0.0,
> and the enhancements must go in a separate source tree, otherwise we will not
> be able to have a stable server for public release. If we don't, then any
> bugfixes to 1.0.? will have to include all the experimental stuff, too. Given
> that the separate source tree is essential, a separate version space makes
> sense, too. The idea being that if you want a solid server, you get the latest
> 1.0.?, and if you want all the latest bells and whistles, you get the latest
> 1.1.?.

Isn't the whole reason we have waited so long to release 1.0.0 to assure
that it is stable enough to be the latest "stable release" so that we
can begin working towards 1.1.0?  1.1.0 being the next "stable release".

I do see your point of this becoming difficult IF we encounter a security
problem or other showstopper that needs a fix. Whatever we decide, I
*don't* want to model our release methods on Linux.