TODO for 1.0

[David Relson]

Greetings,

As you all know, today the mime processing code was merged into the main 
development tree, most documentations files were moved to a central 
location, the main README was updated to help new users find the 
documentation, etc.

Soon, hopefully this week, I'll be releasing a new bogofilter beta.  Much 
as I'd like to call it 1.0, other voices have spoken and I have listened, 
and it will not be 1.0.  Likely it will be 0.10.0 since 10 comes after 9 
and there's too much new stuff to merely call it 0.9.2. Alternatively, 
since 0.10 sounds like 10% done, it might be 0.9.5 to signify closing 
the  distance to 1.0.

IF this new release turns out to be stable, in a month or so it may be 
promoted to 1.0.  However, as the message below points out, there are a 
number of things that bogofilter is lacking.  Added to bogofilter, they 
would be a major step and might be sufficient completion to justify a 1.0 
label.

So, please use Greg's message (below) as the starting point for a dialog on 
what's needed for 1.0.  Other ideas are welcomed.  Of greatest value would 
be people to take on some of the work.  Several items relate to 
documentation and I wonder if there are any writers out there?

David

At 07:07 AM 1/4/03, Greg Louis wrote:

>TODO for 1.0 should include, I'd say:
>
>- agree on testing methodology that we all trust, so we don't see
>   people write "I haven't tested it yet" when others have done so
>   extensively (this has been a major virtue of the Spambayes project)
>
>- finalize the algorithm choice (I think everyone who's seriously
>   evaluated each would agree that Robinson-Fisher is the best available
>   at present, though I suspect Robinson-BayesChain might deserve further
>   evaluation).  That's not to say we mightn't change it if Gary or
>   someone else comes up with an even better scheme, but I'd like to see
>   bogofilter officially support just one at a time -- serial monogamy
>   if needed, but no more polygamy :)
>
>- agree on what mime parsing we want to do and how it's to be done, and
>   do it, and give it time to prove its worth and settle down
>
>(The classifier and the tokenizer are the crucial elements of the
>program, obviously.  They need to be right and they need to be stable.)
>
>- develop a sound and sensible HOWTO that explains what the parameters
>   (spam cutoff, nonspam cutoff, minimum deviation, s and x) do, how
>   they interact, and how to choose values for them.  I think this
>   really really matters: we can't claim we're ready for prime time when
>   at bottom we don't truly understand what we're doing.  Me, I know in
>   theory what they do and a little about how they interact, but there
>   is more to be thought through and/or learned before I could claim to
>   know how bogofilter's classification really works.  And I doubt that
>   I'm unique in my ignorance.  I still see people on the bogofilter
>   list doing pure handwaving with x, for example.
>
>That's not by any means a complete list, but I hope it gives the
>flavour of why I don't see it as wise to claim 1.0 readiness at this
>stage in bogofilter's growth.  If 0.10.0 sounds like regression to
>infancy, then I'd propose sticking with 0.9.x, letting x go to 99 or
>beyond if need be.