On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 07:40, Green, Paul wrote: > jw schultz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > > [general discussion of forthcoming patches removed] > > > All well and good. But the question before this thread is > > are the changes big and disruptive enough to make a second > > branch for the event of a security or other critical bug. > > Agreed. [...]
After reading arguments, is support the "delay the branch till it absolutely must happen" approach... ie don't branch until a bugfix needs to go in to a "stable" version and HEAD is way too "unstable" to be released with the fix as the new "stable". > Quite true. But I'd like to make the point that I think it is worth making > the decision to split now. Having two branches will change attitudes. And > I think with as large a community of users as rsync clearly has, it is worth > changing attitudes. Having a production branch will remind us that we have [...] Actually, a bigger "attitude" issue for me is having a separate rsync-devel and rsync-user lists. I have almost unsubscribed many times because of the numerous newbie user questions; I'm only interested in the devel stuff. I'm sure there are many users who have unsubscribed because of the numerous long technical posts. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ABO: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info, including pgp key ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
