From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: iptables branch management Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:05:15 +0200 Message-ID: <4E68935B.3000401@trash.net> References: <20110905175425.GC32733@1984> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jan Engelhardt , Netfilter Developer Mailing List To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:46152 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754769Ab1IHKF0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Sep 2011 06:05:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110905175425.GC32733@1984> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am 05.09.2011 19:54, schrieb Pablo Neira Ayuso: > Hi Jan, > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 04:20:13PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> Hei >> >> I would like to propose a "stable" branch that would be rooted >> in the most recent tag and only receive fixes. Furtheremore, >> the branch is merged time and again into master, so that the >> fix is available in both without cherry-pick. 1.4.12.x releases be made >> from stable, and 1.4.y from master. >> How about it? > > Hm, I remember that we had this discussion before. > > I think it's probably too much overhead for it, looking at how other > similar net-tools are maintained, the amount of contributions that > er receive and amount of changes that get into every version. I also think this is probably overkill, what's wrong with simply creating stable branches on demand if there are important fixes that require a new release?