Thus far, dnsmasq has not maintained separate stable and development branches. One reason for this is that there's been a pretty strong policy of backwards-compatibility, so the penalty for upgrading to the latest release is low: we've almost certainly not broken your config, or changed behaviour. On the other hand, sometimes fixes for bugs have been delayed by work on features.
It looks like there are a couple of regressions in 2.69 which need early correction. The dnsmasq way of this would be to release 2.70 rapidly with fixes, but once serious development starts on the next set of features, the ability to do that is lost. The alternative would be to open stable and development branches, and make a 2.69.1 bugfix release. There's some cost in doing that, of course. More repo complexity and work in moving fixes into the development as well as stable releases. Git makes that much easier than before, of course. I'm interested in opinions for and against the status-quo or a new stable/devel split. Cheers, Simon. _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
