FreeTDS Development Group

[Frediano Ziglio <freddyz77 AT tin.it>]

Il giorno mar, 06/12/2005 alle 18.07 +0100, Robert Klemme ha scritto:
> 2005/12/6, Lowden, James K <LowdenJK AT bernstein.com>:
> > > From: Li, Maggie (IT)
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 9:16 AM
> > >
> > > > Also, what does "ident $(command -v freebcp)" tell you?
> > >
> > > $Id: tds.h,v 1.167 2003/12/31 11:33:10 freddy77 Exp $
> > ...
> > > $Id: freebcp.c,v 1.28 2003/12/09 10:19:16 freddy77 Exp $
> >
> > I thought that might be the case.
> >
> > Upgrade.  You're using 0.62, code that's two years old; we'll be
> > releasing 0.64 soon.  A lot happens in two years.
> 
> How true.  That reminds me that I always wanted to ask about freetds
> version number policy.  When can we expect to see 1.0 (or even
> higher)?  On one hand I have the feeling that 0.63 is pretty much
> stable (at least the bulk loader which is the only one we extensively
> tested so far) on the other hand 0.63 seems to indicate quite a gap to
> 1.0 which irritates me a bit...
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> robert

Good question Robert... I start following this project some years ago
(changelog say on 2002) and there was 0.53 version. I remember that we
introduced a lot of changes so someone (Brian perhaps) decide to release
a 0.60 version (skipping some versions). After that we just follow a
simple increment role... 0.61, 0.62, 0.63 and 0.64.

I think that the confusion raise from not using separate versions for
stable and development. For instance we are developing the future 0.64
version and we call cvs head version ad 0.64... 

So your question is: "Will a "1.0" version be available?"
Mine is: "How care?" :-)
Current 0.63 version support a lot of feature and 0.64 support even
more. From my point of view (that is mainly ODBC) there are only a big
TODO: cursors... query, results, all types, dynamic sql, RPC are already
there we support a lot of systems and a lot of applications.

About bulk operations... I have to say that Bill made a good work but I
feel (and I hope that is only a feeling) that this field is not very
tested... If you could get the point where program segfaults (after
updating to 0.63 of course!) it would be very helpful.

freddy77