Re: [RFC] nftables 1.0.6 -stable backports

[Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>]

Hi Phil,

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 10:39:15AM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> 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?

I made a bit of digging in the history, and we already pulled the 4
digits handle in the past for iptables.

https://www.netfilter.org/projects/iptables/files/changes-iptables-1.4.19.1.txt

As for 0.9.10, it would skip 0.9.9:

$ git log --oneline v0.9.8..v0.9.9 | wc -l
150

We can start with a few -stable branches, namely 0.9.8.y and 1.0.6.y
as it has been suggested, I am going to push patches to the branches,
I will keep you posted.