On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Dave Wolfe wrote:
> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:18:15 -0500
> From: Dave Wolfe <dwolfe@risc.sps.mot.com>
> To: "Joe R. Jah" <jjah@sol.ccsf.cc.ca.us>
> Cc: Chan Wilson <cwilson@slurp.neu.sgi.com>,
> "Brian L. Heess, VP Tech" <brian@thru.net>,
> Brock Rozen <brozen@torah.org>,
> Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@math.uh.edu>,
> Majordomo Workers List <majordomo-workers@GreatCircle.COM>
> Subject: Re: 1.94.5 < Majordomo < 2.0
>
> [ Joe R. Jah writes: ]
> >
> > I know most Majordomo Workers are fully committed to MJ2; nevertheless, I
> > believe 1.9x will continue to predominate among Majordomo users until MJ2
> > is officially released. Improvements in 1.9x benefits all supporters of
> > Majordomo. After all, the more polished MJ1, the more anticipated MJ2;^)
> > therefore, I respectfully request that you consider releasing 1.95.0 using
> > patches in: ftp://sol.ccsf.cc.ca.us/majordomo-patches/1.94.5/
> >
> > I have tested the following patches extensively, and strongly recommend
> > their inclusion in 1.95.0:
> >
> > config_parse.pl-resend.1 Bounces non-member messages to sender|owner|both
> > majordomo.1 Patches the which command @ hole
> > majordomo.3 Provides more robust confirmation procedure
> > resend.1 Puts missing "Subject" header if(subject_prefix)
> > sample.cf.0 Defines variables for robust confirmation and
> > sets a default policy for non-member bounce
> >
> > The following patches look fine to me, but I haven't tested them:
> >
> > archive2.pl.0 Fixes Y2K problem with archive2.pl
> > bounce.1 Fixes minor Y2K bugette in BOUNCE
> > majordomo.pl.1 Provides better address matching
> >
> > I am not sure about following patch:
> >
> > config-test.0 Directory perms & registration message
>
> I think that telling users to set the lists directory permissions to
> 0777 is dangerous, but the other patches in config-test.0 seem harmless
^^^^
That's what raised my doubts about the patch.
> enough. Is there really anything that justifies a new major version
> number? Why not just 1.94.6? I don't believe any of these address
I had assumed that point releases were for bug fix only. 1.94.6 is fine.
> the recent problem report re checking log directory permissions in
> config-test, do they? I think it raised a very legitimate concern.
I must have missed that report; do you think config-test.0 should address
those problems to be included in the next release?
Regards,
Joe
--
_/ _/_/_/ _/ ____________ __o
_/ _/ _/ _/ ______________ _-\<,_
_/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ ......(_)/ (_)
_/_/ oe _/ _/. _/_/ ah jjah@sol.ccsf.cc.ca.us
|
|
