On 20/04/14 16:57, Brad Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:52:19AM -0400, Weedy wrote:
>> On 18 Apr 2014 05:27, "Olaf Westrik" <weizen...@ipcop-forum.de> wrote:
>>> On 2014-04-17 23:14, Simon Kelley wrote:
>>>> Thus far, dnsmasq has not maintained separate stable and development
>>>> branches. One reason for this is that there's been a pretty strong
>>>> policy of backwards-compatibility, so the penalty for upgrading to the
>>>> latest release is low: we've almost certainly not broken your config, or
>>>> changed behaviour.
>>> May I add: you have done that exceptionally well.
>>>> I'm interested in opinions for and against the status-quo or a new
>>>> stable/devel split.
>>> A full split would mean extra work for you and probably more users
>> sticking to some stable branch for a long time. For dnsmasq I do not think
>> it is worth the effort.
>>> If at some point during development, important fixes are necessary, it is
>> probably more convenient to open something like a temporary stable branch
>> with the sole purpose of applying fixes on top of the latest released
>> version.
>>> OTOH if you were to give out a notice saying: here is something
>> critically important, please apply GIT commit xyz to fix it, that would
>> work just as well for our use case.
>> I was about to post a similar comment.
>> I don't see a point in splitting off stable branches constantly. But point
>> releases as needed if regressions are found sound about right.
> IMO sounds good to me. A point release for regressions and
> other bug fixes would be a good way of doing things instead
> of another full on release which usually tries to mix in
> feature changes as well pushing out a release.

That seems to be the concensus.

In the current state, I can simply do a 2.70 release to fix the nasty
bugs in 2.69, since there's been no feature work done since. In future,
if bugs come up later in the development cycle, I'll do point releases
to fix them.



Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to