On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Dick Davies wrote:

> * Jim Wise <jwise@draga.com> [0451 17:51]:
>
>> We have never shipped a release with this software.  Thus, it is not
>> being `renamed', it is being `named'
>
> I think that's a little nitpicky - you say this as though only developers
> use current, which isn't true.

I don't see that it makes any difference; anybody else using current
not only ought to be aware that incompatable changes go in, but *has*
to be aware of that. Far more major changes than this have happened to
subsystems in current.

And taking away that ability to change (by even suggesting we should
worry at all about backward compatability between versions of -current,
except to help with upgrades between versions of current during short
periods) would, IMHO, severely cripple the project: committing work to
current is one of the project's primary means of communication.

So I'd definitely strongly oppose any argument that suggested that the
pf spamd has been "named" yet.

> My point was that if you wanted to fix a naming inconsisteny...it
> would be more sensible to rename the pkgsrc generated binaries and
> bump PKG_VERSION/PKG_MESSAGE, thereby notifying all affected parties
> (users of the package) in one swell foop.

The problem is, then you're hitting parties that did not sign up for
something known to introduce regular backwards incompatabilities. Not
that we can't introduce those into released systems, but we should be
a lot more careful about doing that than in features in unreleased
systems.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.NetBSD.org
      Make up enjoying your city life...produced by BIC CAMERA