On 2015/07/18 17:16, Brad Smith wrote: > On 07/18/15 17:04, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote: > >viq <[email protected]> writes: > > > >[...] > > > >>>>Maybe it would make sense then to have both 0.6 and 0.7 in the tree? > >>> > >>> > >>>3 lines up from that.. > >>> > >>>The current stable release is 0.6.26, released May 6, 2015. > >> > >>Yes, and right below that it says: > >>The 0.6 series is in the process of being deprecated and the 0.6.26 > >>release is the last release of the series that will receive new > >>additions or enhancements. > >> > >>0.6 is becoming deprecated. 0.6 doesn't support a backend I'd like to > >>use, 0.7 does. We have in ports postfix stable and snapshot. Maybe it > >>would make sense to have the same for duplicity then? > > > >If some people really need the devel version I don't see a reason not to > >do it. > > The rule of thumb we use for the ports tree is use releases and stable ones > at that. That is the reason 99%+ of the ports tree use such releases.
Supplying multiple versions of a port which is a dependency of other ports adds some problems, it's not too bad here because it's a rundep only, but deja-dup uses this, so that would want to be handled one way or another. Anyone know upstream's timescale on naming 0.7 stable?
