From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94F25CD690A for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:39:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229578AbjJJIjd (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2023 04:39:33 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60086 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230129AbjJJIj2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2023 04:39:28 -0400 Received: from orbyte.nwl.cc (orbyte.nwl.cc [IPv6:2001:41d0:e:133a::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 005FAB8 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 01:39:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n0-1 by orbyte.nwl.cc with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qq8Gp-0008Ia-2l; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 10:39:15 +0200 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 10:39:15 +0200 From: Phil Sutter To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Cc: Florian Westphal , Arturo Borrero Gonzalez , Jeremy Sowden , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] nftables 1.0.6 -stable backports Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Phil Sutter , Pablo Neira Ayuso , Florian Westphal , Arturo Borrero Gonzalez , Jeremy Sowden , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org References: <20231009111543.GB27648@breakpoint.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org 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 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