[Users] Claws Mail 3.13.2 Unleashed!!

[blind Pete]

On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 07:57:22 +0000
Paul <claws at thewildbeast.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:40:30 +1100
> blind Pete <peter_s_d at fastmail.com.au> wrote: 
> 
> > That is the one that is relevant to me.  
> > 
> > Does the CM team release security patches for "old" releases like
> > 3.12 or even 3.11?  I've just realized that I don't remember seeing
> > any mention of them recently.  
> 
> No, we just do new releases. Always moving forward. All users are
> encouraged to use the latest version. I don't see the point of
> issuing patches for previous versions. All the patches are freely
> available in the GIT tree anyway. Do a diff between the new tag and
> the previous tag and there is your patch, or grab individual patches
> as they go in.
> 
> > Is there an official CM numbering scheme, and what does it mean?
> 
> There's no hard and fast rule, it's flexible.
> 
> > First number, major release - incompatible with previous ones?
> 
> Something significant usually has to happen for this to change. We
> moved to 3 when we switched the license from GPLv2 to GPLv3.
> 
> > Second number, feature enhancement?   
> 
> New features present. (usually)
> 
> > Third number, bug fix - not security related?
> 
> Bug fixes only, no new features. (usually)
> 
> > Fourth number, Security fix?  
> 
> There is no fourth number.

Thought that I had seen one.  Outside packagers could have added more
more digits.  

> > Is there just a single development tree with security fixes
> > triggering a release and selection of a suitable number?  
> 
> Have a look there and you will see:
> http://git.claws-mail.org/?p=claws.git;a=summary
> 
> A release is not 'triggered', it's an entirely manual process.
> 
> > It seems that all CM releases are security releases.  
> 
> I don't see why you say that. Have a look there:
> http://claws-mail.org/NEWS

The last half dozen releases have all had security related items.  

> > I'm on a long term release distribution because I want to spend more
> > time using my computer rather than playing with it.  
> 
> There's no playing involved, it's a simple procedure. You could even
> add the handful of commands to a bash script and reduce it to a
> single command whenever you feel the need.
> 
> with regards
> 
> Paul

I might still end up doing that, but I am trying not to be a full
time system administrator, just an Ubuntu user not a developer.  

-- 
testing
bP