From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5570E95A96 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 11:41:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1346218AbjJILlm (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Oct 2023 07:41:42 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58080 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1346303AbjJILlk (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Oct 2023 07:41:40 -0400 Received: from ganesha.gnumonks.org (ganesha.gnumonks.org [IPv6:2001:780:45:1d:225:90ff:fe52:c662]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82B129D for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 04:41:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [78.30.34.192] (port=49656 helo=gnumonks.org) by ganesha.gnumonks.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qpodi-00DafO-Nr; Mon, 09 Oct 2023 13:41:36 +0200 Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 13:41:33 +0200 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Florian Westphal Cc: Arturo Borrero Gonzalez , Jeremy Sowden , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, phil@nwl.cc Subject: Re: [RFC] nftables 1.0.6 -stable backports Message-ID: References: <20231009111543.GB27648@breakpoint.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20231009111543.GB27648@breakpoint.cc> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 01:15:43PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote: > > On 10/9/23 12:44, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > - Another possibility is to make a nftables 1.0.6.1 or 1.0.6a -stable > > > release from netfilter.org. netfilter.org did not follow this procedure > > > very often (a few cases in the past in iptables IIRC). > > > > Given the amount of patches, this would be the preferred method from the > > Debian point of view. > > > > 1.0.6.1 as version should be fine. Only one thing: I just wonder if this new 4 numbers scheme might create confusion, as there will be release with 3 numbers and -stable releases with 4 numbers. > In that case the only question is if we add 1.0.6.y branch to > nftables.git or create nftables-stable.git. > > I'd go with stable branches directly in nftables.git, but would > not mind a separate repo either. Fine with me, separated branch is fine.