On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 00:44 +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote: Hello Carlos, NO criticism on the content of the releases and the technical improvements, nor on the communication on the security bug and panic of certain people. Just some remarks on versioning here.
* tracker-extract: Sandbox extractor threads. Filesystem and network
access are limited to being read and local only.
As a semver fan myself, I wonder why you didn't start 1.12.0 instead of calling this update 1.11.2? Sandboxing sounds to me like a new feature. Not just a bugfix. As Tracker gets used in ever increasing use-cases, ie. not only desktops, I think our users want a clear version numbering policy. The semver rules offer just that, and are compatible with API and ABI changes and packaging formats like Debian and RedHat's.
* tracker-miner-fs: Fixed high CPU use when receiving many writeback
notifications at once.
* tracker-extract, libtracker-sparql, libtracker-miner: plug leaks
* tests: cleanups and improvements
Those two are worthy of a 1.11.2, yes. So I would have released a 1.12.0 containing the sandboxing, and a 1.11.2 with these two.
Translations: hu
1.11.2 Now, I understand that 1.10.1 was in need of a upgrade too, and incrementing its version number to 1.11.0 would have conflicted with existing releases under 1.11.x. What to do in that case, in my opinion, is to release a 1.12.0 coming from 1.10.1 (instead of 1.10.2). And a 1.13.0 coming from 1.11.1 (instead of a 1.11.2). The release numbering just jumps over the existing ones. I also think that, given that you are maintaining +3 simultaneous releases, a gitflow setup could be useful (develop, master, hotfix/*, release/* and feature/*). Kind regards, Philip
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part