On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:52:19AM -0400, Weedy wrote: > 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.
IMO sounds good to me. A point release for regressions and other bug fixes would be a good way of doing things instead of another full on release which usually tries to mix in feature changes as well pushing out a release. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
