[spambayes-dev] 1.0a5 release [was: SpamBayes Readme]

[Richie Hindle]

[Tony]
> There's also the option of ripping out all the backwards compatibility
> code from Options.py/OptionsClass.py.
> [...]
> I'd actually like to see 1.0b1, though.  In terms of the API, we must be
> pretty stable now, right?  Except that if we are going to do the
> renaming thing (as proposed by Greg), we should probably do that (really
> the sooner the better if we are going to, even if we are still at
> 1.0a5).

I'm +1 on both pulling out the backward-compatibility code and on renaming
everything, but I don't think we can do that in a beta release - even the
first one.  Major changes like that should happen during the alpha cycle
IMHO.

It could even be worth releasing 1.0a5 *before* making those edits, with
an announcement that the old options and script names are deprecated, then
immediately releasing 1.0a6 with just those edits in place.  That way,
no-one will be obliged to swallow the new names in order to get their
hands on a bugfix.

> I've been meaning to look at [the problem of messages not appearing on
> the review page] too

If I find a decent amount of time to devote to it I'll let you know, and
if you could do the same then we won't duplicate the work.

> I think we should also catch the 'no dbm available' traceback (I can't
> remember the wording) and replace it with a nice error for (at least)
> pop3proxy users, so that those using dumbdbm don't flood us with "1.0a5
> doesn't work" messages.

+1

> I still like the cuteness of releasing the next
> version on the 4th of September, at which point SpamBayes will have been
> at sourceforge for exactly a year.

I'd like to say +1, especially since it's my birthday too!  (Spambayes is
exactly 31 years younger than me, and already considerably brighter 8-)
But if we're ready more than a couple of days before that, we should
probably go ahead.

-- 
Richie Hindle
richie at entrian.com