From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: iptables branch management Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:58:43 +0200 Message-ID: <4E68D823.60306@trash.net> References: <20110905175425.GC32733@1984> <4E68935B.3000401@trash.net> <4E68BAA8.5010501@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso , Netfilter Developer Mailing List To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:51022 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751795Ab1IHO7A (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:59:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am 08.09.2011 16:41, schrieb Jan Engelhardt: > > On Thursday 2011-09-08 14:52, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> >>> Nothing wrong, it just has not been done consistently or at all in the >>> past. I believe it does not hurt to go ahead with this, also since I am >>> statistically taking care of most submissions these days anyway. >> >> What has been done in the past doesn't really matter, we can of course >> agree to have a stable branch when needed. But I don't see the point of >> having a stable branch as long as it doesn't contain any fixes. > > Oh we are nicely accumulating fixes & trivials already - do not worry > about that. Just let me pull this off, all it means is that > there is another branch head on iptables.git, and something convenient > for the release manager to tag should the need arise for a .y release. > Users already seem to like the idea[1]. > [1] http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=131499886708085&w=2 > Sure, go ahead.