Re: [RFC] nftables 1.0.6 -stable backports

[Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>]

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 01:41:33PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 01:15:43PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Arturo Borrero Gonzalez <arturo@debian.org> 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.

An upcoming 1.0.9 might be a good chance to switch upstream numbering
scheme: Depending on whether it is deemed acceptable to reorder patches
in public git history, one could make 1.0.9 contain only the fixes since
1.0.8 and release a 1.1.0 containing what remains. And from then on
collect just fixes to 1.1.0 into 1.1.N and new features into 1.2.0.

Assuming that downstream does its own "stable releases" already,
skipping a 1.0.6.1 or 0.9.8.1 should be OK. Was a 0.9.10, being
0.9-stable, acceptable or are there too many new features between 0.9.8
and 0.9.9?

Cheers, Phil