On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Matthias Andree wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, James Yonan wrote: > > > I would like to merge your IPv6 patch into the 2.1 branch, once it gets > > started (I'd like to keep the 2.0.x branch as stable as possible, with > > minimalistic changes that don't go beyond bug fixes and small patches). > > Speaking of branches; I have updated the FreeBSD OpenVPN 1.6 port to > 2.0, overthrowing requests to keep the 1.6 port around and start a new > openvpn2 port instead, on the assumption that OpenVPN 2.0 is in the same > line as 1.6 was in my perception, and not a separate branch, and I've > assumed that we won't see further 1.6 branches. Was this correct?
Yes, I think that 2.0 is close enough to being a drop-in replacement for 1.6 that it's hard to justify maintaining 1.6 as a separate branch. > Would you think it's important to keep an "openvpn16" port (at 1.6.0) > available or is 2.0 sufficient? I'd think 2.0 is sufficient as it's a > really smooth upgrade from 1.6 (the FreeBSD port hasn't dared use > pthreads since FreeBSD 4 has had three competing thread models for a > long time - so we're not losing this feature in the FreeBSD port). Optional pthread support should be back by 2.1. > Thank you for your great work on OpenVPN 2.0. Thanks! James
