On 2014-04-17 23:14, Simon Kelley wrote:
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.
May I add: you have done that exceptionally well.
I'm interested in opinions for and against the status-quo or a new stable/devel split.
A full split would mean extra work for you and probably more users sticking to some stable branch for a long time. For dnsmasq I do not think it is worth the effort.
If at some point during development, important fixes are necessary, it is probably more convenient to open something like a temporary stable branch with the sole purpose of applying fixes on top of the latest released version.
OTOH if you were to give out a notice saying: here is something critically important, please apply GIT commit xyz to fix it, that would work just as well for our use case.
Olaf _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
