On 18 Apr 2014 05:27, "Olaf Westrik" <weizen...@ipcop-forum.de> wrote: > > 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.
I was about to post a similar comment. I don't see a point in splitting off stable branches constantly. But point releases as needed if regressions are found sound about right.
_______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
