On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 14:16, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2003, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > 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 q
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 05:44:32PM -0800, Madole, Dave BGI SF wrote:
>
> I agree with this. I am in a situation where I don't install rsync
> myself, I have to depend on sysadmins to do it. They get very nervous
> and insist on installing it as something like "rsync2_5_5" because they are
> afr
On 30 Jan 2003, Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 t
hey?
Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: Green, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 8:14 PM
> To: Rsync Mailing List (E-mail)
> Subject: Proposal that we now create two branches - 2_5 and head
>
>
> I'd like to suggest that thi
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:40:36PM -0500, Green, Paul wrote:
> Having a production branch will remind us that we have a place to put
> stability or security fixes, and will make it easy to do so.
I think I see now how you're viewing this branch -- as something to keep
updated with fixes in paralle
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
'jw schultz' wrote:
> I'm concerned about patches getting into the "production"
> branch that don't get forward ported.
Hmm, dangerous.
> This is CVS, we can always extract a tagged version.
And create the branch from there, at a later date, IIRC ?
So, development can continue on HEAD, right no
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:40:36PM -0500, 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
> > b
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.
> Person
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:41:40PM +1100, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 18:22, Craig Barratt wrote:
> > > I have several patches that I'm planning to check in soon (I'm waiting
> > > to see if we have any post-release tweaking to and/or branching to do).
> > > This list is off the t
jw schultz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:24:57PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> > On 28 Jan 2003, "Green, Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I think splitting the branches will also let us be a little more
> > > experimental in the development branch, at least
Martin Pool [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2003, "Green, Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think splitting the branches will also let us be a little more
> > experimental in the development branch, at least until we get near
> > the next release phase, because we'll always ha
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 18:22, Craig Barratt wrote:
> > I have several patches that I'm planning to check in soon (I'm waiting
> > to see if we have any post-release tweaking to and/or branching to do).
> > This list is off the top of my head, but I think it is complete:
>
> And I have several thing
> I have several patches that I'm planning to check in soon (I'm waiting
> to see if we have any post-release tweaking to and/or branching to do).
> This list is off the top of my head, but I think it is complete:
And I have several things I would like to work on and submit:
- Fix the MD4 block
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:24:57PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> I agree that this would be a good approach if and only if there is
> energy to do lots of development in the head branch. What do you have
> in mind?
I have several patches that I'm planning to check in soon (I'm waiting
to see if we
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:24:57PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2003, "Green, Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think splitting the branches will also let us be a little more
> > experimental in the development branch, at least until we get near
> > the next release phase, because
On 28 Jan 2003, "Green, Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think splitting the branches will also let us be a little more
> experimental in the development branch, at least until we get near
> the next release phase, because we'll always have the field release
> in which to make crucial bug fixe
I'd like to suggest that this is now a great time to create two separate cvs
branches for the rsync product. One, which I'll tentatively call 2_5, would
hold the version of the code that has been released to the world as 2.5.6.
The other, which I'll tentatively call head, would hold the development
18 matches
Mail list logo
