From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: iptables release plans Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:44:07 +0100 Message-ID: <4D87D4B7.5000404@trash.net> References: <4D879D96.2000904@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org" To: Jozsef Kadlecsik Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:37984 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754011Ab1CUWoO (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:44:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 21.03.2011 22:09, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >> About a potential iptables release for 2.6.38 - we don't have any >> new features in the kernel that would require a new release. >> However we've had a lot of other changes that would be good to >> get out for wider testing. >> >> Unfortunately due some confusion at the time of the last kernel >> release, all patches for the upcoming feature in 2.6.39 have been >> added to the master branch. I don't want to release extensions >> for new kernel features while we're in the -rc phase since we >> might still decide to change the userspace API. >> >> So the options basically are: >> >> - branch off the current HEAD, remove all new extension for upcoming >> features and release that branch >> >> - skip the release for 2.6.38 >> >> Any opinions? > > I don't really like either one, but if we have to choose then the first > one seems better. At least the release will contain the bugfixes. Yeah, it certainly was a mistake, but to me the first option seems better as well. Thanks!