[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

# GEMS version numbers (RE: North Carolina Export)

- To: <support@gesn.com>
- Subject: GEMS version numbers (RE: North Carolina Export)
- From: "Ken Clark" <ken@gesn.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:17:53 -0600
- Cc: "Jeff Dean" <JWDean@spectrumltd.com>
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <NDBBJBKEHMHBEPDMLKOLGENICLAA.ljdglobal@gesn.com>

> From: owner-rcr@gesn.com [mailto:owner-rcr@gesn.com]On Behalf Of Larry Dix
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 9:53 AM

> As I see more and more of these export requirements from different states, I must ask a fundamental question. Is it possible to have the export of data fall outside of a specific GEMS release.

As has been discussed many times in the past, it is possible to make GEMS report whatever version number you want. But if you want to be able to differentiate the version of GEMS that does, say, North Carolina Export from the version of GEMS that does not, then you need a different number. Also, it is my understanding that our policy is to not misrepresent version numbers.

We could of course write an independent software package that only did state exports. Dis-integrating GEMS as it were. Seems to me that a change to that program would require a new version number and re-certification though, just like GEMS.

> In the past we have shot ourselves in the foot by attaching a specified export to a release level that is not certified in the state.

Well, in the past we got a version of GEMS certified in South Carolina that was incapable of satisfying South Carolina's state reporting requirements. In short, had the state cert board done their jobs, we would not have been certified in South Carolina in the first place. We did not shoot ourselves in the foot by attaching a specified export to a release level. We shot ourselves in the foot by taking a version of GEMS to certification that was incapable of running their elections.

> This has caused many problems in the past.

Can you list them for the record? It would be good information to have on hand. I am only aware of the South Carolina case w.r.t certification and state export.

> Now is the time to address this and rectify this if possible.

Indeed.

Ken

- Follow-Ups:
  - Re: GEMS version numbers (RE: North Carolina Export)
    - From: "Talbot Iredale" <tiredale@gesn.com>

- Prev by Date: Re: NEXT SHELL & Postscript Question
- Next by Date: RE: ballot shell question
- Index(es):
  - Chronological
  - Thread