inbuxa/ihasmail-inbuxa
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 1 Wiki Activity

Stalwart has not reached 1.0 yet

Browse Source 
Both the versioning comment and the README described 1.0 in the past
tense, which reads as though it has shipped and the numbering was
changed in response. It has not. The old `2.16.x` scheme was dropped
over where it would end up, not where it ended up, and the surrounding
conditionals are simplified to match: "would sort", "would read", rather
than "would have".

The badge quoted in the comment also said 0.16.19; it says 0.16.20 now.

Comments and prose only -- no behaviour changes.
This commit is contained in:
jcoffey-dev
2026-08-30 21:22:07 -07:00
parent 12157f47bf
commit b0cb73a924
2 changed files with 7 additions and 7 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
scripts/version.mjs
+4 -4
View File
@@ -5,12 +5,12 @@
* +pr129 the pull request it arrived through
*
* The date leads because ihasmail's version used to be `2.16.<pr>`, where `16`
* was the Stalwart generation it targeted -- and Stalwart 1.0 leaves that with
* nowhere to go. `2.1` would have sorted *below* the `2.16` already deployed,
* so every image and About screen would have read as a downgrade. Tying our
* was the Stalwart generation it targeted -- and Stalwart 1.0 will leave that
* with nowhere to go. `2.1` would sort *below* the `2.16` already deployed, so
* every image and About screen would read as a downgrade. Tying our
* numbering to somebody else's was the mistake; which Stalwart a build needs is
* said properly in the README badge and KNOWN-ISSUES, where it can be precise
* ("0.16 or newer; tested against 0.16.19") rather than one digit.
* ("0.16 or newer; tested against 0.16.20") rather than one digit.
*
* The pull request moved into build metadata, after the `+`, because it is
* provenance rather than a position in a sequence: at a hundred merges a week