From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: iptables 1.4.0.77, Xtables-addons 1.5.4.1 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:11:48 +0200 Message-ID: <48186204.4090701@trash.net> References: <4815B2ED.7090806@netfilter.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed" To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso , netfilter@vger.kernel.org, Netfilter Developer Mailing List Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Monday 2008-04-28 13:20, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > =20 >> Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> =20 >>> I have uploaded an (unofficial) tarball of the current (official) H= EAD from >>> the SCM up to http://dev.medozas.de/files/xtables/iptables-1.4.0.77= =2Etar.bz2 >>> (+ .asc). The version number is derived from git-describe telling m= e it has >>> been 77 commits since the last tag (Dec 22 2007), and it should not= interfere >>> with any official release numbering plans. >>> =20 >> People have SVN snapshots from the Netfilter FTP? >> Why do we need this sort of unnofficial release? >> =20 > > I did not know (or rather, forgotten) that automatic tarballs were > created. People do not seem to use these (but perhaps `svn co`), > otherwise they would have probably noticed before me now that they > are currently generated incorrectly. > > I predict that the _majority_ of users do not run any snapshot. And > they probably would not run a snapshot because they are not > interested, or because their distro does not package it =E2=80=94 and= there > is nothing wrong with that. > > By giving a specific snapshot the explicit "tarball blessing" which > implies it was tested more than the usual autogenerated snapshot, it > will =E2=80=94 hopefully =E2=80=94 give reason to actually use it on = a regular basis. > =20 I would prefer if you would avoid creating confusion by creating unofficial tarballs with official sounding names and versioning. Its time for a -rc though, I agree.